Reilly v. Union Protestant Infirmary

• Decision Date: 28 June 1898
• Citation: 40 A. 894,87 Md. 664
• Parties: REILLY et al. v. UNION PROTESTANT INFIRMARY OF CITY OF BALTIMORE et al.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

40 A. 894

87 Md. 664

REILLY et al. v. UNION PROTESTANT INFIRMARY OF CITY OF BALTIMORE et al.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

June 28, 1898

Appeal from circuit court of Baltimore city.

Suit by J. Smith Orrick, executor of the last will of Mary Long deceased, against Mary Reilly, John Bradford, the Union Protestant Infirmary of the City of Baltimore, the Trustees of the Presbytery of Baltimore, and others, to obtain construction of a will. A decree was rendered, from which defendants Mary Reilly and John Bradford appeal. Affirmed.

Argued before MCSHERRY, C.J., and BRISCOE, BRYAN, PAGE, FOWLER, and ROBERTS, JJ.

Rich. M. Duvall and Edwin Higgins, for appellants. John L. G. Lee Cowen Cross, E. J. D. Bond, and Jos. Packard, Jr., for appellees.

MCSHERRY C.J.

By the second clause of her last will and testament, Mary Long bequeathed to the "Presbyterian Infirmary on Division street, in Baltimore city" "the sum of five hundred dollars"; and, by the fourth or residuary clause, she gave the rest and residue of her estate to the "Central Presbyterian Church (Eutaw street), and the Home Mission of the Presbyterian Church of Baltimore, to be divided equally between them, share and share alike." The next of kin of the testatrix claim that the gifts to the Presbyterian Infirmary on Division street and to the Home Mission of the Presbyterian Church are void, because there are no such corporations existing as those named in the will. The Union Protestant Infirmary, a body corporate, owning and conducting an infirmary on Division street, in Baltimore, claims the legacy to the Presbyterian Infirmary on Division street; and the Trustees of the Presbytery of Baltimore, a body corporate, claims that it is entitled to receive the share of the residuum given to the Home Mission of the Presbyterian Church of Baltimore. The executor, being confronted by these conflicting claims, filed a bill in the circuit court of Baltimore city, against all the parties asserting an interest in the funds, and asked that the court take jurisdiction of the administration of the estate, and construe the will. The several defendants answered the bill. The appellants, the collateral next of kin of the decedent, who left no lineal descendants, relying on the alleged invalidity of the second and fourth clauses of the will, claimed the property therein disposed of; and the appellees, asserting their ability to take the bequests, insisted that the property passed to them under the will. Testimony was taken, and, upon final hearing a decree was entered sustaining the contention of the appellees. From that decree, the next of kin have appealed.

In disposing of the questions involved, we do not propose to cite or to rely on parallel or seemingly parallel cases, because, as has often been said by this and other courts, when the decision is not upon some rule or principle of law, but upon the meaning of descriptive terms in instruments which differ so widely from each other as wills almost invariably do, and when the proper construction of these terms is so varied by the peculiar circumstances of each case, it seldom happens, or can happen, that the words of one will are a sure or a safe guide for the construction of words resembling them in another will. The intention of the testator as gathered from the will itself, when the will is read in the light of the circumstances and environments that surrounded its author at the time of its execution, is, in the last analysis and in every instance, the objective point of judicial inquiry. The law will not deny to the reader of an instrument the same light that the writer had. If the testamentary intention is thus made to appear with reasonable certainty, it will prevail, provided, of course, the language employed and actually written is, when interpreted from the standpoint which the testator occupied at the time of using it, sufficiently intelligible and apt, and provided no principle of law or settled rule of property be invaded by giving effect to the intent when so ascertained.

The testatrix was at the time of her death, and for many years previously had been, a contributing and an active member of the Central Presbyterian Church of Baltimore. She was evidently intensely interested in the various auxiliary religious and benevolent bodies affiliated with, or which she thought were affiliated with, her faith. Of the seven bequests contained in her will, five are for religious or benevolent purposes. The first of these five is to the Presbyterian Infirmary on Division street, in Baltimore. There is an infirmary on Division street, and the record shows there is but one. That the testatrix intended to give to an infirmary on Division street a legacy of $500...