Pearre v. Grossnickle

• Decision Date: 29 June 1921
• Docket Number: 69.
• Citation: 115 A. 49,139 Md. 274
• Parties: PEARRE v. GROSSNICKLE.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

115 A. 49

139 Md. 274

PEARRE v. GROSSNICKLE.

No. 69.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

June 29, 1921

Appeal from Circuit Court, Frederick County; Glenn H. Worthington Judge.

Petition by George A. Pearre, Jr., executor and trustee under the will of George O. Grossnickle, deceased, against Lillie L Grossnickle, coexecutor. From a ruling against plaintiff, he appeals. Reversed and remanded.

See also, 114 A. 725.

Argued before BOYD, C.J., and BRISCOE, PATTISON, URNER, STOCKBRIDGE 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 appellee.

PATTISON J.

This is an appeal from the rulings of the circuit court for Frederick county on issues sent to it from the orphans' court of that county upon the petition of the appellant, George A. Pearre, Jr., an executor and trustee under the will of George O. Grossnickle, against Lillie L. Grossnickle. his coexecutor under said will. The issues were presented to determine the validity of certain alleged gifts from Mr. Grossnickle to his wife, the defendant, which she had taken possession of, and, as charged by her coexecutor, has concealed from the estate of her husband and has refused to account for same as part of his estate.

The alleged gifts consist of an automobile and two deposits in the Farmers' & Mechanics' Bank of Frederick, Md., one a checking account for $550.62, and the other a savings account, or interest-bearing deposit, for $6,188.58.

The verdict on the issue as to the validity of the gift of the deposit of $550.62 was for the plaintiff, while the verdict upon the other two issues relating to the automobile and the deposit of $6,188.58 were for the defendant, Mrs. Grossnickle. An appeal was taken by Mr. Pearre, from the ruling of the court against him, but no appeal was taken by Mrs. Grossnickle from the rulings against her.

The twelfth prayer of the plaintiff asked the court to instruct the jury that there was no evidence legally sufficient to show a valid gift from the husband to the wife of the deposit in bank of $6,000 and accrued interest, and their verdict on that issue (the fifth) must be for the plaintiff. The plaintiff was refused this instruction, and the verdict of the jury upon that issue was against him.

The evidence discloses that, in the spring or early summer of 1918, Mr. Grossnickle, a prosperous business man of Frederick, who had for years been associated in business with one Charles A. Collins, was stricken with an incurable disease. In the latter part of July or the first of August his condition became grave, and he gradually grew worse, until the 18th day of December following he died. In the early stages of his illness, and up to about the 1st of August, his wife from time to time received money, with which to defray the living expenses of the family from Mr. Collins, who was conducting the firm's business. As she says, it became embarrassing to her to call upon him for money when the needs of the family required it.

At this time, Mr. Grossnickle had the two accounts in the Farmers' & Mechanics' National Bank of Frederick, the smaller one, as we have said, a checking account, and the larger one a savings deposit, upon which interest was paid him. At times he would draw upon his checking account, but, as stated by his wife, it grew irksome to him to sign checks. When she told him of her dislike to call upon Mr. Collins for money, he, it seems, concluded to make some arrangement by which he would not be required to sign checks, and his wife would be relieved of the necessity of calling upon his partner for money.

Shortly thereafter, Mr. Hendrickson, assistant cashier of the Farmers' & Mechanics' Bank, on a Sunday early in August, dropped in at the home of Mr. Grossnickle to say "Howdy do" to him, and while there in conversation with Mr. Grossnickle-

"The matter came up about his wife being able to get some funds if he *** could not sign a check, and I told him there was a way out of that if he wanted to do it, and what he could do."

He then explained to him that he "would have to get a paper and sign it to that effect." Mr. Hendrickson was unable to say what reply, if any, Mr. Grossnickle made to his suggestion, but he was inclined to think that Mr. Grossnickle was favorable to what he had said. Mr. Hendrickson was then asked if it was not the checking account to which reference was made in his conversation with Mr. Grossnickle, to which Mr. Hendrickson replied that Mr. Grossnickle wished to know some way by which his wife "could be put in a position to get some funds, if she needed them when he was not able to sign a check; of course, it naturally referred to the commercial (checking) account, but it may be that the other one came in before."

Mrs. Grossnickle testified that thereafter her husband said to her:

"You go to the bank and tell Gilson (an officer of the bank) to give you one of those papers, so if you need it (money) you can get it; but, if you don't need it, I don't want you to spend it unless compelled to."

She afterwards got the paper from the bank, and, as she says several days thereafter her husband asked her if she had "the papers," and she told him she had, and he asked to see them. She said to him "Are you sure you want to see them?" He said, "yes," and she got the paper for him. He read it over a number of times, and signed it, but, as he started to sign it, she leaned over and said to him "Don't, daddy; you sure you understand, know what you are doing?" He said, "Yes; I know what I am doing," "very short to me, because he never...