Holland v. Enright

• Decision Date: 23 November 1934
• Docket Number: 56.
• Citation: 175 A. 466,167 Md. 604
• Parties: HOLLAND v. ENRIGHT.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

175 A. 466

167 Md. 604

HOLLAND v. ENRIGHT.

No. 56.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

November 23, 1934

Appeal from Circuit Court, Baltimore County; Frank I. Duncan, Judge.

Caveat by Ruth P. Enright to the will of Peter Johnson, opposed by Peter Holland, executor of the estate of Peter Johnson deceased. From an order of the Circuit Court, to which court issues had been transmitted by the Orphans' Court for determination by jury, denying caveatee's motion to strike the case from the files, caveatee appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before BOND, C.J., and PATTISON, URNER, ADKINS, OFFUTT PARKE, and SLOAN, JJ.

John Watson, Jr., of Baltimore (Elmer R. Haile, of Towson, on the brief), for appellant.

Jenifer & Jenifer, of Towson, for appellee.

OFFUTT Judge.

Ruth Pease Enright, on October 8, 1933, filed in the orphans' court of Baltimore county a caveat to the will of one Peter Johnson against Peter Holland, the executor named in the will to whom letters testamentary on the estate had been granted. In that caveat she stated that the heirs at law of the decedent were a brother, Evan Johnson, and three greatnieces of whom she was one, and then set up the grounds usually alleged in such cases as reasons why the will should be set aside.

Under that will Ruth Enright, the caveator, was entitled to a legacy of $166.67, and on February 11, 1933, the executor filed exceptions to the sufficiency of the caveat on the grounds "that said Ruth P. Enright, by a release under her hand and seal, dated the 18th day of June, 1932, the original of which is filed in this court, and a copy whereof is hereto appended as a part hereof, released your petitioner not only for the legacy bequeathed to her by said Will, but also released in full all claims against the estate of said deceased on any and every account whatsoever; and that in said petition and caveat, said Ruth Enright has not stated any reasons why, after having executed and delivered said release, she should be permitted to file said caveat." The caveator, in a paper called an "Answer and Petition," answered the exceptions, admitted the execution of the release and that she had received the amount due her under the will, but by way of avoidance said that she had done so "without the full knowledge" of the facts and circumstances relating to the mental capacity of the said Peter Johnson at the time the will was signed, or of the undue influence which may have been practiced upon him, or of the amount and character of his estate, and without knowledge of her legal rights therein; that all such facts and circumstances were "within the knowledge and control of the said Executor, Peter Holland and his attorneys"; that Holland failed in any way to disclose that knowledge; and that she "could not have, by the exercise of ordinary prudence and diligence, become acquainted with the facts regarding same." She further alleged that before the caveat proceedings were tried it was necessary to dispose of the preliminary question of whether Ruth Pease Enright was estopped from prosecuting the caveat. Accordingly she asked the orphans' court to transmit to a court of law for trial three issues of fact (1) whether the caveator had executed the release with full knowledge of the facts and circumstances relating to the mental capacity of the said Peter Johnson, deceased, to execute a valid deed or contract, or was she put on inquiry regarding same, or could the said Ruth P. Enright have, by the exercise of ordinary care and prudence, acquired full knowledge of such facts and circumstances; (2) whether she had executed it with "full knowledge of the facts and circumstances relating to the question of undue influence that may have been exercised and practiced upon the said Peter Johnson, deceased, in connection with the execution by him of the said alleged Will heretofore filed and admitted to probate in the Orphans' Court of Baltimore County, or was she put on inquiry regarding same or could the said Ruth P. Enright have, by the exercise of ordinary care and prudence, acquired full knowledge of such facts and circumstances"; and (3) whether she executed it with full knowledge "of the amount and character of the Estate of the said Peter Johnson, deceased, and with full knowledge of her legal rights in and to said estate, or was she put on inquiry regarding same or could the said Ruth P. Enright have, by the exercise of ordinary care and prudence, acquired full knowledge of such facts and circumstances."

That petition was filed on May 31, 1933, and on the same day a copy was served upon counsel for the caveatee, and also on the same day the court passed an order directing that the issues prayed be sent to the circuit court for Baltimore county to be tried and determined by a jury under the direction of that court. The papers were accordingly transmitted, whereupon the caveatee filed in that court a motion to strike the "case" from the files, on the grounds (1) that by the release referred to in its exceptions filed in the orphans' court of Baltimore county on February 11, 1933, the caveator had released the estate from all claims against it; (2) that the "Exceptions" amounted to a demurrer to the caveat; (3) that...