Hughes v. Drovers' & Mechanics' Nat. Bank

• Decision Date: 01 December 1897
• Citation: 38 A. 936,86 Md. 418
• Parties: HUGHES v. DROVERS' & MECHANICS' NAT. BANK OF BALTIMORE.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

38 A. 936

86 Md. 418

HUGHES v. DROVERS' & MECHANICS' NAT. BANK OF BALTIMORE.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

December 1, 1897

Appeal from circuit court of Baltimore city.

Action by Peyton M. Hughes, trustee, against the Drovers' & Mechanics' National Bank of Baltimore, to require delivery of shares of stock. From a decree for defendant plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Henry C. Kennard, for appellant. Jas. McColgan, for appellee.

Argued before McSHERRY, C.J., and BRYAN, BRISCOE, FOWLER, ROBERTS PAGE, and BOYD, JJ.

PAGE J.

The object of this proceeding is to require the appellee corporation to deliver up to the appellant trustee the certificate of 20 shares of its stock or a new certificate for that number of shares, or the equivalent of them in money. There are but few facts in the case, and they are undisputed. John Carnes, of Baltimore city, deceased, by the second clause of his will devised and bequeathed to his married daughter, Margaret Pawley, "house No. 128 N Eden street. I also give her twenty shares of the Nat Drovers' and Mechanics' Bank, par value one hundred dollars each; I also give her one ground rent on the N.E corner of Monument and Durham Sts.; and I also give her whatever may be due me from two shares of the East Balto. Permanent Land Co. and Building Society. All of which is to be transferred to her in her own name, to use the interest thereof as long as she may live, and at her death to be equally divided among her children, unless she becomes a widow. Then she is to have full control of this bequest, to do with it as she pleases. I also give her the amount, as shown on my book, due me by her husband, Finley Pawley." On the 15th of May, 1884, the orphans' court of Baltimore city "ordered and directed that the said executrices have transferred to the legatees under the will, viz.: Margaret Pawley, 20 shares of the National Drovers' and Mechanics' Bank of Baltimore; Andrew J. Carnes, five shares of the Consolidated Gas Company." Thereupon the stock of the National Drovers' & Mechanics' Bank (being the stock now in question) was transferred to Margaret Pawley, who, later on, sold it to various persons, and used the proceeds thereof for the support of herself and her family. It is not contended that the bank had other knowledge of the condition of Mrs. Pawley's ownership than that which appeared from its own records. None of the stock was purchased by the bank, or on its account; and it had nothing to do with the transactions by which the title passed from Mrs. Pawley, except to permit the transfers to the purchasers to be made on its books. Upon these facts, it is contended by the appellant that Mrs. Pawley had only a life estate in the stock, and it was the duty of the bank to see that no transfer should be made by her that did not protect the interest of the persons entitled to the fund after her death; and this notwithstanding the order of the orphans' court. This conclusion, it is argued, ensues from the fact that, by reason of the transfer of the executrices of the will of John Carnes, the bank had notice of, or was bound to know the contents of, that instrument, and such knowledge, as was said in Ehlens' Case, 72 Md. 218, 19 A. 651, "continued all the way down." Passing by, however, the effect of the order of the orphans' court, and assuming, for the sake of the argument, that under all the circumstances of the case the bank must be charged with full notice of the will and its contents, let us inquire what were the rights of Mrs. Pawley in and concerning the stock. It was insisted by the appellee that "no trust whatever was created" by the second paragraph thereof; that the words, "to use the interest thereof as long as she may live, and at her death to be equally divided among her children, unless she become a widow. Then she is to have full control of this bequest, to do with it as she pleases,"--when taken in connection with the direction to "transfer to her in her own name," ought to be regarded as words of recommendation only, and insufficient to raise a trust. However that may be, it is clear that some force must be given to the words, "all of which is to be transferred to her in her own name." It...