Surratt v. Knight

• Decision Date: 14 January 1932
• Docket Number: 87.
• Citation: 158 A. 1,162 Md. 14
• Parties: SURRATT v. KNIGHT ET AL.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

158 A. 1

162 Md. 14

SURRATT v. KNIGHT ET AL.

No. 87.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

January 14, 1932

Appeal from Circuit Court of Baltimore City; Albert S. J. Owens Judge.

Suit by William H. Surratt, executor of the last will and testament and of the first codicil thereto of James T. Knight, late of Baltimore City, against Helen M. Knight and others. From a decree dismissing the bill of complaint, plaintiff appeals.

Appeal dismissed.

ARGUED before BOND, C.J., and URNER, ADKINS, OFFUTT, PARKE, and SLOAN, JJ.

William Surratt, of Baltimore (Paul R. Hassencamp and Catherine A Wheatley, both of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.

Charles F. Harley, of Baltimore (Allan C. Girdwood, John B. Gontrum and Jacob S. New, all of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellees.

PARKE J.

James T. Knight died testate and William H. Surratt was named the executor of the testator's will, which was admitted to probate, and letters testamentary were granted to the executor. The only child of the testator filed a caveat to the will, and the issues raised were transmitted to the superior court of Baltimore city, whence they were removed to the court of common pleas of Baltimore city, where the issues were all finally found in favor of the validity of the will and the findings duly certified to the orphans' court of Baltimore city, which thereupon confirmed its probate and grant of letters, and imposed the payment of the costs upon the testator's estate. The executor stated two administration accounts by which it appears that he has paid all bequests, except those to the three residuary legatees.

The will and codicil present no question for resolution. It is clear beyond controversy that all of the testator's estate is residuary and is distributable absolutely to three charitable incorporations of the state of Maryland for their corporate purposes, but without any trust, condition, or limitation whatsoever. The caveator and daughter and the three residuary legatees, however, agreed, after a mistrial of the issues because of a disagreement of the jury but before the second trial, that they would compromise the litigation by the residuary legatees severally assigning unto the daughter the one-half of their respective residuary legacies in consideration of the daughter's agreement not to offer any testimony on the second trial of the issues. This compromise settlement was performed according to its terms, and the three assignments to the daughter were placed upon record and presented to the executor, who refused to recognize their validity on the ground that the residuary legatees could not transfer nor assign their several legacies. The executor thereafter brought the daughter and the three residuary legatees into equity under a bill of complaint which prayed that a court of equity assume jurisdiction of the further administration of the estate, construe the residuary clause of the will, ascertain the validity of the three assignments, and direct the executor in the distribution of the residuary estate. The defendants answered, and took the position that there was no basis for a court of equity to intervene, but consented to a distribution in accordance with the terms of the will, stating, however, that the terms of the assignments, pursuant to the compromise, would nevertheless faithfully be performed. After the taking of testimony in open court and argument by counsel, the court dismissed the bill of complaint, and put the costs upon the estate. The executor has appealed from this decree.

An executor is the personal representative of the testator, and after probate, is charged with the duty to defend and maintain the validity of the instrument with loyalty and fidelity, and to complete...