Mercantile Trust Co. of Baltimore v. Schloss
Decision Date | 25 May 1933 |
Docket Number | 16,17. |
Citation | 166 A. 599,165 Md. 18 |
Parties | MERCANTILE TRUST CO. OF BALTIMORE v. SCHLOSS ET AL. SCHLOSS v. SCHLOSS ET AL. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeals from Circuit Court No. 2 of Baltimore City; H. Arthur Stump Judge.
Bill by the Mercantile Trust Company of Baltimore, as executor and trustee under the will of William Schloss, deceased, against Ida Schloss and others. From the decree, plaintiff, and defendant Ruth Schloss, infant, appeal.
Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Argued before BOND, C.J., and PATTISON, URNER, ADKINS, OFFUTT DIGGES, PARKE, and SLOAN, JJ.
Fisher & Fisher and L. Wethered Barroll, all of Baltimore, for appellants.
Edwin T. Dickerson and John E. Magers, both of Baltimore, for appellees.
William Schloss, of Baltimore City, died on the 15th of May, 1931 leaving a last will and testament executed on April 30, 1930, which was duly probated in the orphans' court of Baltimore city on June 8, 1931, and letters testamentary were granted to the Mercantile Trust Company of Baltimore, which duly qualified as executor. By the first item of the will the testator directed that his debts and funeral expenses and all taxes of every kind be paid out of the estate. By item two he bequeathed to Ida Schloss, his wife, all his household goods, furniture, wearing apparel, articles of personal use, and any automobile or automobiles which he might own at the time of his death absolutely. By item 3 the executor was directed to pay Ida Schloss, accounting from the date of death of the testator, the sum of $200 per month until such time as she be actually receiving income from the trust estate created by the will. Items 4, 5, and 6 are as follows: --designating certain persons, corporations, or institutions, in certain designated amounts aggregating $265,000.
The will further provides that the trustee shall pay over the balance of said trust estate in his hands, after the payment of the above-mentioned legacies and bequests, unto the Sinai Hospital of Baltimore, Incorporated. The trustee is then given broad powers in the management and control of said trust estate, and every part thereof, and also the right to invest and reinvest, or change investments. By section 9 it is provided: By section 10 it is provided: "The aforegoing provisions for my said wife are intended to be and shall be in bar of her dower and all other interests of every kind and description in my real and personal estate." Finally in section 13 it is provided: "It is my intention and I do hereby declare that the mention of the above powers are not intended to be an inhibition upon the exercise of other powers by my executor, but that my executor shall have the same power over my estate as I would have if living." An inventory and appraisal was filed in the orphans' court on January 14, 1932 showing the whole amount of the estate to be $135,238.18.
On October 7, 1931, the widow, Ida Schloss, renounced the will and elected to take in lieu of all bequests or devises her legal share of her deceased husband's estate, both real and personal. On the 12th day of January, 1932, the widow executed and filed the following assignment:
On August 12, 1932, the appellant, as executor and trustee under the will of William Schloss, filed its bill of complaint in circuit court No. 2 of Baltimore city, wherein all the parties entitled under any of the provisions of the will were made defendants, and wherein it was prayed: And, fifth, for other and further relief.
Among the beneficiaries of the trust estate were a certain Ruth Schloss and Nathan Schloss, infants, for whom, upon petition, guardians ad litem were appointed.
All of the defendants answered, consenting and submitting to any decree that might be passed therein, with the exception of Mary Jane White, who alleged in her answer that the renunciation of the widow should have no effect upon the pecuniary legacy made to her in the fourth item of the will; that the trustee should pay to her, in addition to the $6,000 and one-half undivided interest in the property, No. 402 West Saratoga street, an amount equal to one-half of the appraised value of $7,000, to wit, $3,500, from the residue of said estate, and that said transfer of said one-half interest and said payments of $6,000 and $3,500 should be made at once, and should not be contingent upon the accumulation of income or the death of the said Ida Schloss; and with the further exception of the two infants, who by their guardians neither admitted nor denied the allegations of the bill of complaint, but submitted their rights to the protection of the court; and with the further exception of a number of institutional beneficiaries which in their answers neither admit nor deny but consent to the passage of such decree as may be right and proper. The record further shows that on the petition of Charles A. McNabb, guardian ad litem for Ruth Schloss, infant, L. Wethered Barroll, Esq., was appointed counsel to said guardian ad litem. Testimony was taken in open court on October 3, 1932, at which time the plaintiff and defendants were represented; after which, on December 6, 1932, the chancellor passed his decree. It is from that decree the two appeals here were taken; the appellant in No. 16 being the Mercantile Trust Company of Baltimore, a corporation, as executor and trustee under the will of William Schloss, deceased, and the appellant in No. 17 being Ruth Schloss, infant. The two appeals are in one record and present the same questions.
There was a motion made by the appellees in this court to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Long v. State
...Md. 113, 118-119, 321 A.2d 534, 538 (1974); Rocks v. Brosius, 241 Md. 612, 630, 217 A.2d 531, 541 (1966); Mercantile Trust Co. v. Schloss, 165 Md. 18, 24, 166 A. 599, 601 (1933). This is so because "entry of a judgment by consent implies that the terms and conditions have been agreed upon" ......
-
Green v. Nassif
...entire balance of personal estate, principal and income, at the time of distribution.” (emphasis added)); Mercantile Trust Co. v. Schloss, 165 Md. 18, 31, 166 A. 599, 604 (1933) (“ [I]n settlement with the widow or her assignees, they were given one-half of the net estate, excluding therefr......
-
Smith v. Luber
...no appeal will lie. See Long, 371 Md. at 86, 807 A.2d 1; Wroten, 35 Md.App. at 361, 370 A.2d 577 (citing Mercantile Trust Co. v. Schloss, 165 Md. 18, 24, 166 A. 599 (1933)). "By agreeing to settle the parties give up any meritorious claims or defenses they may have had in order to avoid fur......
-
Bish v. Bish
... ... 963; Cockey v ... Cockey, 141 Md. 373, 379, 118 A. 850; Mercantile ... Trust Co. v. Schloss, 165 Md. 18, 28-30, 166 A. 599; ... Marriott ... ...