Pearre v. Grossnickle
| Decision Date | 28 June 1921 |
| Docket Number | 15. |
| Parties | PEARRE v. GROSSNICKLE et al. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Frederick County, in Equity; Glenn H Worthington, Hammond Urner, and Edward C. Peter, Judges.
Suit by Lillian L. Grossnickle, individually and as executrix of George O. Grossnickle, deceased, and others, against George A. Pearre, Jr., executor and trustee of George O Grossnickle, deceased. From a decree ordering the distribution of a fund derived from the sale of partnership lands in which testator had one-half interest, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before BOYD, C.J., and BRISCOE, PATTISON, ADKINS, and OFFUTT JJ.
Milton G. Urner, Jr., and George A. Pearre, Jr., both of Frederick (Urner & Urner of Frederick, on the brief), for appellant.
William M. Storm and Frank L. Stoner, both of Frederick, for appellees.
George O. Grossnickle at the time of his death, on the 18th day of December, 1918, was engaged in business in the city of Frederick, Md., with one Charles A. Collins, trading under the firm name of Collins & Grossnickle. The firm at such time was seized and possessed of a lot of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon, which were used by it in the conduct of its business. In addition to said real estate the firm also owned and possessed a considerable amount of personal property.
By his last will and testament, dated the 21st day of May, 1918, George O. Grossnickle bequeathed his household furniture to his wife, Lillian L. Grossnickle, one of the appellees. The rest and residue of his estate he devised and bequeathed unto George A. Pearre, Jr., in trust, for the benefit of his five infant children, the other appellees in this case, and named the said Pearre and his said wife as executors of his will.
In December, 1919, Lillian L. Grossnickle, individually and as executor under the will of her husband, and as mother and next friend of said infant children, filed a bill in the equity court of Frederick county against the said Charles A. Collins, individually and as surviving partner of the firm of Collins & Grossnickle, and against George A. Pearre, Jr., both as executor and trustee under the will of George O. Grossnickle, alleging therein, among other things, that an offer to purchase George O. Grossnickle's interest in said real estate and personal property of the firm had been made to the executors by Collins, the surviving partner, at an amount less than its real value, and that George A. Pearre, Jr., her coexecutor, was disposed to accept the offer and sell Grossnickle's interest in said property for such inadequate sum.
Other allegations were made in the bill, and an answer to the bill was filed by each of the defendants, but we are relieved of the necessity of stating with more particularity either the allegations of the bill or the averments of the answers, because of an agreement thereafter filed by the parties to which we will again refer. The prayers of the bill asked: (1) That an order be passed restraining and enjoining Collins, the surviving partner, and Pearre, the coexecutor and trustee, from selling, disposing of, or in any manner interfering with the said partnership assets; and (2) that receivers be appointed to administer the property and assets of said partnership under the direction and supervision of the court.
But by the agreement of the parties above referred to, it was agreed:
(1) That the one undivided half interest of George O. Grossnickle, deceased, in the personal property of the firm should be sold by the executors unto the said Charles A. Collins for the sum named therein; and (2) that trustees should be appointed by the court for the sale of said real estate, and the same sold by them, and that after the payment of the costs and expenses incident to the sale and the payment to Collins of his "share or interest" from the proceeds of such sale, the balance thereof to "be payable to the estate of George O. Grossnickle, or those claiming through or under him, either by will or by law shall be payable into court and deposited on interest, subject to the rights of the parties and claimants thereto, to be determined by the court or courts, in this or any future cause, suit or matter in regard to the same, all rights being reserved as to said fund the same as if said fund was real estate."
A decree as agreed upon was passed by the court, and a sale of said real estate was made, and the proceeds thereof paid in court or deposited in accordance with the terms and provisions of said agreement; and the sole question presented by this appeal is whether the said Lillian L. Grossnickle is entitled to participate in the distribution of said fund. Her right to participate therein is denied by the appellants because, as they allege, she in the lifetime of her husband relinquished her rights in his estate by an oral agreement which was fully executed by him.
After bequeathing the household furniture to his wife, the testator, George O. Grossnickle, says in his will:
The College Park property which is referred to in the will as one of the properties given to the wife in his lifetime, the value of which at the time of the testator's death was placed at $15,000, was bought in 1915, and was paid for by George O. Grossnickle, but when the deed therefor was taken the property was by it granted to George O. Grossnickle and Lillian L. Grossnickle, his wife, as tenants by the entirety. At this time Mr. Grossnickle was, so far as the record discloses, in good health and actively engaged in business and it was only in the event of his wife surviving him that the property was to become hers, for had her husband survived her the property would have been his. The said three pieces of property on Fifth street, of the estimated value of $1,500, also mentioned in the will as property given by the testator in his lifetime to his wife, were acquired by the wife largely, if not altogether, through the financial aid of her husband, he having from time to time given to her money, which it seems she applied to the payment of the purchase money owing thereon, or to the payment of certain incumbrances resting thereon, which had to be paid off, or satisfied, before she could acquire an absolute...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johns Hopkins Hospital v. Lehninger
...part, acquires some corresponding right, either of property, of contract, or of remedy." (Footnote omitted.). See Pearre v. Grossnickle, 139 Md. 1, 8-9, 114 A. 725, 728 (1921); Rodgers v. John, 131 Md. 455, 462, 102 A. 549, 551 Whether the doctrine is to be applied in a given case is depend......
-
Trotter v. Lewis
...renounced any other right in her husband's lands in this State. Acts of 1916, ch. 325; Code 1939, art. 46, §§ 2, 3, 4; Pearre v. Grossnickle, 139 Md. 1, 114 A. 725. The statute expressly states that nothing contained shall be taken as giving a husband any right of conveyancing, by deed inte......
-
Brenner v. Plitt
... ... this court in the following cases: Rodgers v. John, ... 131 Md. 455, 102 A. 549; Pearre" v. Grossnickle, 139 ... Md. 1, 114 A. 725; Benson v. Borden, 174 Md. 202, ... 198 A. 419; Rody v. Doyle, 181 Md. 195, 29 A.2d 290 ... \xC2" ... ...
-
Wright v. Wagner
... ... 280, 9 A.2d 648 ... Whether ... or not the doctrine applies depends upon the facts and ... circumstances of each case. Pearre v. Grossnickle, ... 139 Md. 1, 114 A. 725; Rodgers v. John, 131 Md. 455, ... 102 A. 549. The case at bar is clearly one of those to which ... it ... ...