Sabit v. Safe Deposit & Trust Co. of Baltimore
Decision Date | 08 December 1944 |
Docket Number | 37. |
Citation | 40 A.2d 231,184 Md. 24 |
Parties | SABIT v. SAFE DEPOSIT & TRUST CO. OF BALTIMORE et al. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied Jan. 29, 1945.
Appeal from Circuit Court of Baltimore City; William L. Henderson Judge.
Suit in equity by the Safe Deposit & Trust Company of Baltimore succeeding trustee under the will of Alfred J. Ulman deceased, against Halil Sabit and others for construction of a clause in a codicil to the will. From a decree construing the clause, named defendant appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Raphael Walter, of Baltimore (Nyburg, Goldman & Walter, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.
Arthur W. Machen, of Baltimore, for infant appellees, Halil Aziz von Scheidt and Omar von Scheidt.
Niles, Barton, Morrow & Yost and Carlyle Barton, all of Baltimore, for appellee Safe Deposit & Trust Co.
Before MARBURY, C.J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, GRASON, MELVIN, BAILEY, and CAPPER, JJ.
Alfred J. Ulman of Baltimore City died testate on October 13, 1906, survived by his widow, Clementine H. Ulman; a son, Jacob Ulman; and four daughters, Bertha U. Walter, Valerie H. Arnold, Alberta Ulman Sabit, and Nanine H. Sabit.
By his will executed on February 26, 1891, he devised and bequeathed his estate to his wife for life, she to receive four-ninths of the income and each child to receive one-ninth. The remainder after his wife's death was devised and bequeathed to his five children equally with a provision that the shares of any of his children who might be under thirty-five years of age and unmarried be held in trust.
By the first and only codicil to the will executed on April 12, 1904, the disposition of his estate after his widow's death was revoked, and under the first, second, and third items of the codicil, after his wife's death, a one-fifth share was left absolutely to his daughter, Bertha Ulman Walter; a one-fifth share absolutely to his daughter, Valerie H. Arnold; and a one-fifth share absolutely to his son, Jacob A. Ulman. Clementine H. Ulman, the widow, died on February 8, 1927, and three-fifths of the estate was distributed absolutely to these three children who are now deceased and survived by issue. Two-fifths of the estate was held in trust under the terms of the codicil for the daughters, Alberta U. Sabit and Nanine U. Sabit.
The Safe Deposit & Trust Company of Baltimore, succeeding trustee under the will of the testator, being unable to determine the provisions of the fourth clause of the codicil, filed a bill of complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City against all parties thought to have a possible interest in the estate, asking the Court to assume general jurisdiction of the trust and to construe the fourth clause of the codicil of the will. The parties were brought in either by summons, acceptance of service, order of publication, answers filed by counsel, or by service of process on the Alien Property Custodian at Washington as some of the interested parties are enemy aliens.
For a proper interpretation of the fourth clause of the codicil, it is necessary to quote it in full as follows:
Testimony was taken in the case. It is shown that at the time of the execution of the original will in 1891, the testator's daughters, Alberta and Nanine, were unmarried and under thirty-five years of age. The daughter, Nanine, between the time of the execution of the will and that of the codicil, married Faid Sabit, and Egyptian. She died on May 24, 1940, without issue. In accordance with the provision of the fifth item of the codicil, as to which there is no dispute, the corpus of the share held in trust for Nanine's benefit was divided and distributed. A one-fourth part became a part of the corpus of the share held in trust for her sister, Alberta Ulman Sabit, under the fourth clause of the codicil of the will aforesaid.
It also develops that between the dates of the execution of the original will and the codicil, the daughter, Alberta, married Aziz Sabit, an Egyptian. By that marriage she had three children: A daughter, Aziza, who married a German national, Max von Scheidt; a son, Halil Sabit; and a daughter, Alya Sabit. Halil and Aziza were born before the death of the testator. The date of birth of Alya is not shown. She predeceased her mother, dying without issue. Aziza von Scheidt, born about 1894, died about the year 1931 leaving surviving her two children, infants now under the age of twenty-one years, Halil Aziz von Scheidt, now about seventeen years of age, and Omar von Scheidt, now about fifteen years of age, German nationals, born after the death of the testator. Halil Sabit, born about 1904, is now living, married with no children, and claims to be the sole beneficiary of the trust created for his mother, Alberta Ulman Sabit.
At the hearing held by the Chancellor, the claim of Halil Sabit to an interest for life in all of the trust created for Alberta Ulman Sabit was presented by his counsel, and the conflicting claim of Halil Aziz von Scheidt and Omar von Scheidt to one-half the trust created for Alberta Ulman Sabit was presented by counsel appointed for them by the Court. The Chancellor decreed in effect that the trustee divide the residuary estate held in trust for Alberta Ulman Sabit into two equal parts, one part to be held in trust for Halil Sabit during his life under the provisions of the codicil and that the other of said two equal parts be held in trust by the plaintiff to transfer and convey the same, together with all net income therefrom, to the children of Aziza Sabit von Scheidt, deceased, daughter of Alberta Ulman Sabit,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Erny's Trust, In re
...means simply, in its ordinary interpretation, remaining in life after the death of that other person.'. Sabit v. Safe Deposit & Trust Co. of Baltimore, 184 Md. 24, 40 A.2d 231, 233.17 Assuming, of course, Thelma is living when these events occur.18 The language in Dravo was much less strong......
-
Muffoletto v. Melick
...with the parties to whom he has devised or bequeathed his property are important elements." See also Sabit v. Safe Deposit & Trust Co., 184 Md. 24, 37, 40 A.2d 231 (1944). The ability--indeed the duty--of a court to look beyond the precise language of the Will in determining the testator's ......
-
Walker v. Safe Deposit & Trust Co. of Baltimore
... ... transmissible interest in one-fourth, rather than one-half of ... the income, citing Turner v. Withers, 23 Md. 18; ... Anderson v. Brown, 84 Md. 261, 35 A. 937; Wilson ... v. Bull, 97 Md. 128, 54 A. 629; Bradford v ... Mackenzie, 131 Md. 330, 101 A. 774; Sabit v. Safe ... Deposit & Trust Co., 184 Md. 24, 40 A.2d 231; ... Marbury v. Bouse, 187 Md. 106, 48 A.2d 582, 166 ... A.L.R. 1272; and Ridgely v. Pfingstag, Md., 50 A.2d ... 578. The appellees contend that these cases are ... distinguishable, that the appellant has acquiesced in ... payments by ... ...
-
Marbury v. Bouse
... ... v. BOUSE, Register of Wills of Baltimore City. No. 171.Court of Appeals of MarylandJuly 23, 1946 ... it be sold and the proceeds turned in to the general trust he ... created in item 6, the residuary clause. He gave ... Brown, supra. Wilson v. Bull, supra; and Hill v. Safe ... Deposit & Trust Co., 101 Md. 60, 60 A. 446, 4 Ann.Cas ... In the recent case ... of Sabit v. Safe Dep. and Trust Co., 184 Md. 24, 40 ... A.2d 231, ... ...