Safe-Deposit & Trust Co. of Baltimore v. Sutro

• Decision Date: 19 February 1892
• Citation: 75 Md. 361,23 A. 732
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals
• Parties: SAFE-DEPOSIT & TRUST CO. OF BALTIMORE et al. v. SUTRO.

23 A. 732

75 Md. 361

SAFE-DEPOSIT & TRUST CO. OF BALTIMORE et al.

v. SUTRO.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Feb. 19, 1892.

Appeal from circuit court of Baltimore city.

The Safe-Deposit & Trust Company of Baltimore sold certain property held in trust by them under a power in the will creating the trust. Otto Sutro, the purchaser, excepted to the ratification thereof. Exceptions sustained. The trust company appeals. Reversed.

Argued before Alvey, C. J., and Miller, Robinson, Irving, Bryan, McSherry, Fowler, and Briscoe, JJ.

Edgar H. Guns and It. H. Hamun, for appellant.

Frank T. Clark, for appellee.

ROBINSON, J. The question in this case is a narrow one, and one, too, in regard to which there cannot be, it seems to us, much difficulty. Noah Walker, the testator, died in 1874 seised and possessed of a large and valuable real and personal property, and leaving but one child, Patrick Henry Walker. After various pecuniary and specific legacies, the testator devises all his property and estate of every kind to Samuel H. Caughy and Noah W. Caughy, and the survivor of them, and the heirs, executors, and administrators of the survivor, in trust that they should (1) take from the income $10,000 per annum, and invest the same, and the accumulation thereof, until the youngest child of Patrick Henry Walker shall attain the age of 21 years, when the whole of said principal and sums, and the increments thereof, shall constitute a part of the trust-estate to be divided among his grandchildren, as hereinafter stated; (2) to permit his son, Patrick Henry Walker, to use and occupy the farm on which the testator resided, free from all rent, taxes, and charges during his life; (3) to pay the net income from all the residue of the estate to Patrick Henry Walker during his life; (4) to pay $6,000 per annum to Rosa B. Walker after the death of his son, Patrick Henry Walker, so long as she should remain his widow; (5) after the death of Patrick Henry Walker, all the testator's property was to be held by Samuel H. Caughy and Noah W. Caughy, trustees, or the survivor of them, or the heirs, executors, or administrators of the survivor, in trust for the children of Patrick Henry Walker living at the time of his death or born thereafter, and the descendants of any deceased child, and for their support and maintenance, until the youngest child should arrive at 21 years of age, when the whole property, including the $10,000 and its accumulation, were to be divided between them. The objects of the testator's bounty, it thus appears, were his son, his son's widow, and his son's children and descendants. None of them, however, were to get any absolute estate at the testator's death. The son was to have the farm free from rent, and the income of the estate, after taking therefrom $10,000 per annum, during his life, the son's widow $6,000 per annum, and the son's children only so much of the income as would be necessary for their maintenance. The trust thus created was to continue from the time of the testator's death until the youngest child of Patrick Henry Walker attained the age of 21 years. The trustees named in the will continued to act as such until February 12, 1891, when, upon the petition of the cestuis que trustent, alleging a maladministration of the trust by said trustees, they were removed, and the appellant was appointed trustee in their place. On November 25, 1891, the appellant, substituted trustee under a power of sale conferred by the will of Noah Walker, and with the written consent of the cestuis que trustent. sold a certain warehouse on Baltimore street at public sale to the appellee for $96, 0110. The sale thus made was reported to the court, and the reasons for making the sale are fully and at large set forth in the report. Accompanying the report are the affidavits of two real-estate experts, to the effect that the price at which the property was sold was the full market value of the property, and that the sale was to the benefit, interest, and advantage of all persons interested in the...