Reid v. Safe-Deposit & Trust Co.

• Court: Maryland Supreme Court
• Citation: Reid v. Safe-Deposit & Trust Co., 86 Md. 464, 38 A. 899 (Md. 1897)
• Decision Date: 02 December 1897
• Parties: REID v. SAFE-DEPOSIT & TRUST CO. OF BALTIMORE.

38 A. 899

86 Md. 464

REID v. SAFE-DEPOSIT & TRUST CO. OF BALTIMORE.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

December 2, 1897

Appeal from superior court of Baltimore city.

Action by A. Page Reid, trading as Reid & Co., against the Safe-Deposit & Trust Company of Baltimore, trustee garnishee of Louisa Presbury. From an order quashing an attachment plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Ralph Robinson, for appellant. Edward Duffy, for appellee.

Argued before McSHERRY, C.J., and BRYAN, FOWLER, PAGE, and BOYD, JJ.

PAGE J.

The only question in this case is whether the net income due Mrs Louisa Presbury, of property in the hands of the trustee under the will of George G. Presbury, is attachable for the debt of the cestui que trust. The appellee, who is the garnishee, became trustee, by appointment of court, in the stead of the original trustees, with the same powers and duties as were conferred on and required of the latter by the terms of the will. The judgment on which the attachment issued was obtained on a promissory note given by Mrs Presbury, in payment of bills for groceries and articles of necessity furnished to her by the appellant. The question involved turns upon the construction of the first item in the will. By that, the testator devises and bequeaths to Frank R Jenkins and Charles R. Goodwin, etc., all the property, real, personal, and mixed, of which he died seised and possessed, "in trust, to hold and manage the same and collect," etc., "and to pay the net proceeds from time to time to my wife, Louisa Presbury, for the term of her natural life, and especially so that the same shall not be liable for the debts or contracts of any future husband, or in any manner subject to his control, or to be taken in execution or attachment or otherwise howsoever, and so that she shall not pledge or anticipate said property or said net proceeds of income, or any part thereof." It appears also, by the agreed statement of facts, that the trustee has now in its hands the sum of $271.42, net income, and that the appraised value of the estate at the time of the death of the testator was $139,000.

On the part of the appellant it is contended that the testator did not intend to create a spendthrift trust, but for a coverture trust, with provision against alienation and anticipation only in the event of the marriage of Mrs. Presbury. It has always been settled law in England that upon the gift or grant of a fee simple or life estate, legal or equitable restraints upon the power of the alienee to alienate the estate and to charge it with debts are repugnant to the grant, and void, unless there is also a provision operating as a cesser or limitation of the estate over. But to that there is an exception, by which restraints on alienation or anticipation are allowed in cases of married women. This exception is "purely an equity doctrine, the invention of the chancellors, *** and was justified on the ground that it was the only way--at least the best way--of giving property to a married woman." Buckton v. Hay, 11 Ch. Div. 645; Tullett v. Armstrong, 4 Mylne & C. 377; Gray, Restr. Alien. Prop. § 142. In Brandon v. Robinson, 18...