Read v. Maryland General Hospital

• Decision Date: 25 June 1929
• Docket Number: 41.
• Citation: 146 A. 742,157 Md. 565
• Parties: READ v. MARYLAND GENERAL HOSPITAL ET AL.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

146 A. 742

157 Md. 565

READ v. MARYLAND GENERAL HOSPITAL ET AL.

No. 41.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

June 25, 1929

Appeal from Circuit Court No. 2 of Baltimore City; Joseph N. Ulman Judge.

Suit by Charles E. Read against the Maryland General Hospital and others for the construction of a will. From a decree sustaining the demurrers of the defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before BOND, C.J., and PATTISON, URNER, ADKINS, OFFUTT DIGGES, PARKE, and SLOAN, JJ.

William F. Podlich and Warren N. Arnold, both of Baltimore, for appellant.

Parlett Brenton and Edwin T. Dickerson, both of Baltimore (Harry L Price, of Baltimore, on the briefs), for appellees.

SLOAN J.

The plaintiff filed his bill of complaint for the construction of the will of Florence M. Tucker, deceased, to which all of the defendants demurred, and it is from the order sustaining all of the demurrers that this appeal is taken.

By her last will and testament, admitted to probate and record in the orphans' court of Baltimore City, Florence M. Tucker left one-third of her estate to Elmer J. Jones in trust for her husband, Joseph E. Tucker, for the term of his natural life, with remainder to her niece, Lydia Cecelia Hoddinott absolutely. She gave one-third of her estate to her said niece absolutely. The remaining third, after the payment of debts, costs of administration, etc., and certain legacies of which there was one of $500 to her nephew, Charles E. Read, the appellant, Mrs. Tucker gave, devised, and bequeathed to "Elmer J. Jones in trust and confidence, nevertheless, for the following uses and trust purposes, to pay the proceeds derived therefrom in equal proportions unto the Maryland General Hospital, Linden Avenue and Madison Street, Baltimore, Maryland; Strawbridge Home for Boys, located at Eldersburg, Maryland; Kelso Home for Girls, located at Towson, Maryland, and the Home for the Aged of the Methodist Episcopal Church, located at Fulton Avenue and Franklin Street, Baltimore, Maryland, so long as the same shall continue under the supervision of the Baltimore Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and in the event of any change from the Conference Control, then the payments shall cease and become part of the rest and residue" of the estate. All the "rest, residue and remainder" of the estate she gave and bequeathed to her niece Lydia Cecelia Hoddinott, absolutely.

Joseph E. Tucker, husband of the testatrix, filed a renunciation of the bequest in trust for him and elected to take in lieu thereof the share of the estate to which he would be entitled by law. The executor, Elmer J. Jones, was authorized and empowered to sell all the real estate except a cemetery lot and make distribution of the proceeds in conformity with the provisions of the will. The bill alleges that by reason of the renunciation of Joseph E. Tucker, he is entitled to one-half of the decedent's estate, and the question has therefore arisen as to what effect the filing of the renunciation has on the plaintiff's interest in the estate, and the bill further charges that the trusts for the benefit of the Maryland General Hospital, Strawbridge Home for Boys, Kelso Home for Girls, and the Home for the Aged are void "for the reason that the said trusts are absolutely indefinite in duration and they clearly violate the established rule against perpetuities." Demurrers were filed by Elmer J. Jones, executor and trustee, and each of the four corporations named as cestuis que trustent; the grounds of demurrer being: (1) That the plaintiff has no interest in any of the matters complained of; (2) that the gifts in trust for the benefit of the said cestuis que trustent are not in violation of the rule against perpetuities and are valid; (3) that the plaintiff has not stated such a case as entitles him to relief in equity.

The first ground of demurrer, namely, that the appellant has no interest in the matters complained of, must be sustained and is in itself a sufficient reason to affirm the decree of the chancellor. If it appears on the face of the bill that the plaintiff has no interest in the subject-matter of his suit, the question may be decided on demurrer. Miller's Equity, § 98; Talbott v. Compher, 136 Md. 95, 102, 110 A. 100; Eureka Life Ins. Co. v. Geis, 121 Md. 196, 201, 88 A. 158. In Stake v. Mobley, 102 Md. 408, 62 A. 963, the case was submitted on an agreed statement of facts, and the decision was that the appellant had no interest in the subject-matter of the suit.

But the appellant contends that he has such an interest as entitles him to file his bill because the trusts created for the benefit of the four named charitable corporations are in violation of the rule against perpetuities, and therefore void, and the corpus of the charitable trusts would go to the heirs at law of the testatrix, he being one of them, and not to the residuary legatee, Mrs. Hoddinott. This contention brings up the question as to whether there has been a conversion of the real estate of the testatrix into personalty. The first provision of the will is: "First I hereby authorize and empower my Executor hereinafter named to sell all my real estate, either at public or private sale, in...