Manning v. Thruston

Decision Date21 December 1882
Citation59 Md. 218
PartiesM. JEANNETTE MANNING, by her next friend JOSEPH T. MANNING v. ROSALIE B. THRUSTON and others. ELIZABETH H. THRUSTON, and others v. CHARLES P. MANNING, Ex'r, and others.
CourtMaryland Court of Appeals

The causes were argued before MILLER, ALVEY, ROBINSON, and IRVING, J.

Will S. Bridendolph, and Ferdinand Williams, for Jeannette Manning.

Benjamin A. Richmond, and William Brace for the children of Charles B. Thruston.

IRVING J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

Charles M. Thruston, of Allegany County, by his will, appointed Charles P. Manning and George A. Thruston, his executors. George A. Thruston having died, Charles P. Manning, became surviving executor. These cross-appeals grow out of orders of the Orphans' Court, of Allegany County, upon the surviving executor's accounts. One of the questions presented involves the construction of the will. By the first clause the testator gives certain real and personal property to his wife for life. By the second he gives a specific legacy to his daughter Mrs. Manning after the death of his wife, the life tenant. By the third clause, after giving certain pecuniary legacies not affected by this controversy, he makes this provision, "I declare that all such money or other property as I have, or may, or do give, or have advanced to any of my children, or grandchildren, during the life of such child or grandchild, shall not be chargeable to such child or grandchild in the division of my estate, but shall be in addition to, and not in satisfaction of any legacy or portion, or other benefit given by this my will, but I further declare, that all net amounts actually paid by me, or which I hereafter pay, or which I am now liable for, and which have to be paid by my executors out of my estate, for my deceased son, Charles B. Thruston, since his death, shall be chargeable to, and form part of the third part of my estate given to his children, as hereinafter bequeathed; and for the benefit of my son George A. Thruston, and my daughter Jeannette Manning, equally, so that the third portion of all my estate given to each of them, my last named son and daughter, shall exceed by one-half of all the money I have paid or may hereafter pay, or am liable for, and my executors or estate has actually to pay for my late son Charles, and since his death, the third portion given by me to his children in and by this my last will."

The fourth clause gives all the residue of his property, including the remainder, after the death of his wife, in the property given her, to his executors for sale and distribution in accordance with the next clause of the will, which is the fifth clause, and is as follows: "I give and bequeath to each of them, my son George A. Thruston, his heirs and assigns, and my daughter, Jeannette Manning, her heirs and assigns, one-third of all the rest, residue and remainder of all my estate, real, personal and mixed, and to Rosalie B., Elizabeth H. and Charles M. Thruston, children of my deceased son, Charles B. Thruston, their heirs and assigns, the remaining third portion of my estate, not hereinbefore bequeathed, that is to say of the rest, residue and remainder thereof, charged however, and chargeable with the money actually paid by me, or which I may hereafter pay or am liable for, and is hereafter paid by my estate or my executors since the death of their father, for him as aforeherein directed, and declared to be my will and intention."

The facts as admitted are, that Charles B. Thruston died in 1868, before the will was made, which was made in 1869; that the testator died in 1873; that George A. Thruston died the 4th of May, 1874, and the widow of the testator Nov. 14th, 1881. It is also admitted that at the time of Charles B. Thruston's death, his father the testator was liable for (and afterwards paid) the sum of nine thousand nine hundred and twenty-nine dollars and eighty-five cents, ($9929.85) as surety for Charles B. Thruston; and that the testator afterwards proved the same against the estate of his son Charles and received dividends thereon which reduced the sum paid on account of suretyship for Charles B. Thruston, by his father, to the sum of forty-seven hundred and fourteen dollars, and ninety-six cents, ($4714.96.)

In the account which was propounded by Charles P. Manning, surviving executor, on the 11th of August, 1882, which was the fourth account upon the estate, the executor charges himself with sundry amounts of cash received since his last accounting, amounting to $6251.95, and prays allowances for sundry disbursements, including an overpayment of $22.66 on his third account, amounting in all to $730.57, and reducing the amount actually in hand to $5521.38. To this sum he then adds $4714.96 under the following description: "Advancements to the estate of Charles B. Thruston, deceased heir of Charles M. Thruston, deceased, per statement annexed and recorded with the first account of C. P. Manning, surviving executor of said C. M. Thruston, deceased, in the Orphans' Court of Allegany County. Interest on said advancements to August 11th, 1882, $3899.31," is then added. Then follows this language "Add amounts distributed to George A. Thruston and M. Jeannette Manning, heirs of C. M. Thruston, deceased, as per said executor's first and second accounts, $5432.07.""" These several sums added together make the amount of $19,567.72, which is then distributed in the account as follows:

"To the Estate of George A. Thruston, 'son,' amount of former dividend ........................................................... $2716 03 1/2 Distribution in this account to the estate of Geo. A. Thruston, 'son,' is accounted for as follows: Paid John H. Young, 'note,' Geo. A. Thruston 916 59 R. W. Pucy, 'note,' Geo. A. Thruston 546 69 Executors S. P. Smith, Geo. A. Thruston 496 21

M. M. Townsend, Geo. A. Thruston 364 73

The above claims with interest to date were paid by C. P. Manning,

surviving executor of C. M. Thruston, deceased, are hereby charged

by him to the estate of Geo. A. Thruston as portion of that

estate's distributive share in this account. The said claims being

notes given by the late Geo. A. Thruston, and guaranteed by the

late C. M. Thruston.

Paid Estate of George A. Thruston, 'son,' .............................. 436 47 -------- $5476 72 1/2 Brought forward ............................................... $5476 72 1/2 To M. Jeannette Manning, 'daughter,' amount of former dividend ............................. 2716 03 1/2 Distribution in this account ................................ 2760 69 ____________________________ $5476 72 1/2 To the heirs of Charles B. Thruston, 'son,' advancements as per statement of Charles P. Manning, &c. * * * ......................... $4714 96 Interest, &c. * * * ......................................... 3899 31 ____________________________ 8614 27 -------- $19,567 72"
 On the 11th of August, 1882, this account was rejected, and the Orphans' Court ordered another account to be stated.
                 
 The directions for that account declared the money paid for Charles B. Thruston "after said Charles B's decease, is an advancement to the heirs of said Charles B. Thurston, and no interest is chargeable on such advancement, and that as soon as there is distributed to the estate of George A. Thruston and Jeannette Manning, each the sum of forty-seven hundred and fourteen dollars and ninety-six cents ($4714.96,) the money arising out of the sales of the remaining property belonging to the estate, shall be distributed, after paying all debts and expenses of the estate, as follows, to wit: one-third to the estate of George A. Thruston, one-third to M. Jeannette Manning, and the remaining third to the children of Charles B. Thruston," and in stating the account ordered the executor to pay the several debts (which had been set off in the distribution against George as his debts for which his father was only security,) as debts of Charles M. Thruston proved against his estate; and then to distribute the remainder of the estate to George A. Thruston and Mrs. Manning. The effect of this decision and order was to charge the estate of the testator with the payment of George's debts, and still to give him a share of the estate undiminished thereby, and thus to leave nothing to be distributed to the children of Charles, because by this method of computation the distributive shares of George and Jeannette did not reach the amount of "advancements" on account of Charles M. Thruston. The account was stated in accordance with the views and order of the Orphans' Court, and was excepted to; but the exceptions were overruled and the account was ratified and confirmed. Mrs. Manning by her appeal complains of the disallowance of interest upon the
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Frank v. Wareheim
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • June 28, 1939
    ... ... distributive share whatever the legatee or distributee owes ... the estate. Manning v. Thruston, 59 Md. 218, ... 228-230; Gosnell v. Flack, 76 Md. 423, 426, 25 A ... 411, 18 L.R.A. 158; Hoffman v. Hoffman, 88 Md. 60, ... 40 ... ...
  • William A. Harris v. Joel B. Harris's Estate
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • May 17, 1909
    ... ... 292, 9 A. 439; ... Bradlee v. Andrews , 137 Mass. 50; ... Baker v. Safe Deposit & Trust Co. , 93 Md ... 368, 49 A. 623; Manning v. Thruston , 59 Md ... 218; Appeal of Wagner , 38 Pa. 122; Lawrence ... v. Lindsay , 68 N.Y. 108; McKibbin's ... Estate, In re , 56 A ... ...
  • Gibson v. Johnson
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 31, 1932
    ...McNeil v. Hammond, 87 Ga. 618; Grattan v. Grattan, 18 Ill. 167; Trammel v. Trammel, 148 Ind. 487; Hall v. Hall, 132 Iowa 664; Manning v. Thurston, 59 Md. 218; Turpin Turpin, 88 Mo. 337; Wickliffe v. Wickliffe, 226 S.W. 1035; Greeland v. Greeland, 65 N. J. 668; Brown v. Kent, 190 N.Y. 422; J......
  • Fersinger v. Martin
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • March 24, 1944
    ...stand together and have effect, the subsequent must prevail as denoting a subsequent intention. Hollins v. Coonan, 9 Gill. 62; Manning v. Thruston, 59 Md. 218; Welsh Gist, 101 Md. 606, 610, 61 A. 665; Pattison v. Farley, supra; Carey v. Dykes, 138 Md. 142, 146, 113 A. 626. In the case of Pa......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT