Merwin v. Safe Deposit & Trust Co. of Baltimore

• Decision Date: 13 January 1937
• Docket Number: 61.
• Citation: Merwin v. Safe Deposit & Trust Co. of Baltimore, 188 A. 803, 171 Md. 346 (Md. 1937)
• Parties: MERWIN v. SAFE DEPOSIT & TRUST CO. OF BALTIMORE.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

188 A. 803

171 Md. 346

MERWIN v. SAFE DEPOSIT & TRUST CO. OF BALTIMORE.

No. 61.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

January 13, 1937

Appeal from Circuit Court of Baltimore City; Robert F. Stanton Judge.

Suit to determine disposition of funds of a trust executed by William T. Walters, deceased, administered by the Safe Deposit & Trust Company of Baltimore, trustee, wherein the pecuniary and residuary legatees of the cestui who had a life interest and power of appointment, claim adversely. From a decree favorable to the pecuniary legatees, William W. Merwin residuary legatee, appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before BOND, C.J., and URNER, OFFUTT, PARKE, MITCHELL SHEHAN, and JOHNSON, JJ.

W Ainsworth Parker, of Baltimore (Parker, Carey & Doub and George Cochran Doub, all of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.

John M. Butler, of Baltimore (Venable, Baetjer & Howard, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee Safe Deposit & Trust Co.

William R. Semans, of Baltimore, for appellee Second National Bank of Uniontown and Allentown National Bank, Guardians, etc.

URNER Judge.

A declaration of trust executed by William T. Walters in 1885 created a trust of certain securities for the benefit of his niece, Mariah Louise Moore, during her life and in remainder to "such person or persons, in such shares and proportions, and upon and for such estates and interests" as should be appointed by her last will and testament. The trust has been administered by the Safe Deposit & Trust Company of Baltimore in consequence of its designation for that purpose in the trust instrument. On April 21, 1934, Mariah Louise Moore died leaving a will by which, after directing the payment of her debts and funeral expenses, she bequeathed $5,000 and some jewelry to her granddaughter, Marjorie Moore Carroll, $2,000 to each of her grandchildren, Robert Russell Merwin, Harry Walters Merwin and William Walters Merwin, Jr., and then made the following residuary devise and bequest: "All the rest, residue and remainder of my estate, real, personal and mixed, and wheresoever situate, I give, devise and bequeath to my daughter, Margaret R. Dickson, and my son William W. Merwin, share and share alike."

The estate of the testatrix was insufficient to pay the pecuniary legacies to her grandchildren in full. Those legacies, aggregating $11,000, would be paid only to the amount of $4,000, unless the deficiency may be supplied from the trust estate, amounting to $12,000, over which the testatrix had a power of testamentary disposition. While her will did not refer to the power, nor otherwise disclose an intention to exercise it (Reeside v. Annex Building Ass'n, 165 Md. 200, 167 A. 72, 91 A.L.R. 426), there is a statute which provides: "Every devise and bequest purporting to be of all real and personal property belonging to the testator shall be construed to include also all property over which he has a general power of appointment, unless the contrary intention shall appear in the will or codicil containing such devise or bequest." Code, art. 93, § 339.

The pecuniary and the residuary legatees under the will of Mariah Louise Moore agree that her power of appointment under her uncle's declaration of trust was exercised by her will as affected by the quoted provision of the Code, but they differ in their theories as to how the trust estate should be applied. It is the view of the pecuniary legatees that the funds derived from the trust should be distributed to them in such amounts as may be needed to pay their respective legacies. The residuary...