TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Ward v. Thompson

Francis A. Ward et ux. v. Robert Thompson

Ward v. Thompson, 6 G. & J. 349 (1833)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals of Maryland · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 15, 1833
Judges
Buchanan, Chambers, Dorsey, Stephen
Citations
6 G. & J. 349
Headnotes
T and 5VI in contemplation of marriage, agreed that all the property of the intended wile, (¡VI,) and estate of every description to which she was then entitled, or might thereafter become entitled, should be, and was thereby conveyed to a trustee and his heirs in trust, for the use and benefit of the said M, her heirs and assigns forever, without impeachment of waste; all which property to be under, and subject, to the exclusive and entire management and control of the said M, her heirs, &c. without the interference in any manner of the said T; and the said M, her heirs; &e. to receive and enjoy the rents, &c. thereof, with power to M, to sell and dispose of the said estate by last will as if she were a feme sole. After the marriage and death of the wife without will; held, that the true character of the contract was not a temporary surrender of the marital rights over the estate during the life of M, but an entire abandonment of them, and therefore he was not entitled to administration upon her estate. Where the contract of marriage merely suspends the marital rights over the wife’s estate during her life, and she fails to exercise the right of appointing an executor, where the right to devise is secured to her by the contract; then the husband is entitled to administration, and to the undisposed personal estate, and choses in action of his wife.
Summary
Appeal from the Orphans court of Prince Georges county. The appellee in this case had obtained from the Orphans court of Prince Georges county, on the 19th June, 1833, letters of administration on the personal estate of his deceased wife, Ann W. Thompson, formerly Ann W. Menger. On the 27th of the same month, the appellants filed their petition, alleging that the letters were improvidently granted to the appellee, — that the appellant’s wife was entitled to the same, she being the eldest child of the intestate by a former husband; and exhibiting with their petition an ante-nuptial contract, made between Thompson and wife, on the 24th of May, 1828; prayed that the letters of administration, which had been granted to the appellee might be revoked, and that letters, &c. be granted to them. The contract referred to in the petition, which was duly executed by the parties, after reciting that a marriage was about to be had and solemnized between the said Thompson and Menger, provided, that all the property and estate of every description, to which the said Ann W. Menger was then entitled, or might thereafter become entitled, should be, and was thereby conveyed to a trustee and his hers, in trust, “for the use and benefit of the said Ann W. Menger, her heirs and assigns forever, without impeachment of, or for any manner of waste; of all which property to be under, and subject to the exclusive and entire management and control of the said Ann W. Menger, her heirs, executors, administrators or assigns, without the interferance in any manner of the said Robert Thompson. And the said Ann W. Menger, her heirs, executors, administrators or assigns, to receive and enjoy the rents, issues, and profits thereof. And the said Ann W. Menger to have full power and authority to make such disposition of all, or any part of said property, as she at any time may think proper and advisable, and to dispose of the same by last will and testament, in as full, free, and ample manner, as if she were not a married woman but a feme sole.” The prayer of the petition being refused by the Orphans court, the record was brought by appeal to this court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Dorsey

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Dorsey, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The right of Robert Thompson, the husband, to the letters of administration granted to him on the estate of his deceased wife is undeniable, unless he be divested of that right, by the deed of settlement executed anterior to wedlock: by which it is declared, that the trustee to whom her real and personal property were granted, should hold the same in trust, “to and for the use and benefit of the said Ann W. Menger, her heirs and assigns forever, without impeachment of, or for any manner of waste; all of which properly, to be under ánd subject to, the exclusive and entire management and control of the said Ann W. Menger, her heirs, executors, administrators, or assigns, without the interference in any manner of the said Robert Thompson. And the said Ann W. Menger, her heirs, executors, administrators, or assigns, to receive and enjoy the rents, issues and profits thereof; and the said Ann W. Menger, to have full power and authority to make such disposition of all, or any part of said property, as she at any time may think proper and advisable. And to dispose of the same by last will and testament, in as full, free, and ample manner, as if she were not a married woman, but a feme sole.” It is manifest on the perusal of this deed, that it is not from the hand of an experienced, skilful conveyancer. It appears to have been inartificially drawn, having omitted a clause usually embraced in such a conveyance, by which the ultimate disposition of the property, in ease of the wife’s death without disposing thereof in her life-time, by last will and testament or otherwise, would be provided for. Had such an omission occurred in an ante-nuptial contract in the usual form, securing her property to the wife for life, without any interference or control of the husband, and giving to the wife the power of testamentary, or other disposition in her life-time, as in the case of Stewart vs. Stewart, 7 Johns. Ch. Rep. 228 , the right of the husband to the property, and of the administration thereof, over which the wife had failed *357 to exercise her power of appointment, could not be controverted. The marital rights of the husband having been suspended only during the life of the wife, after her death they are as efficaciously revived, as regards the future, as if no such suspension had ever taken place. As a necessary consequence, he is entitled to all the undisposed of personal estate, and choses in action of his deceased wile. But such is not the condition of the husband in the present case. He has not made a temporary surrender of his marital rights over the estate in question, during his wife’s life; but has abandoned them forever. His agreement is that, “without the interference in any manner of the said Robert Thompson,” “all of which property to be under, and subject to the exclusive and entire management and control of the said Ann W. Menger, her heirs, executors, administrators, or assigns,” “and the said Ann W. Menger, her heirs, executors, administrators, or assigns, to receive and enjoy the rents, issues, and profits thereof.” In the trust estates of the wife, the husband is entitled to a life-estate, as tenant, by the courtesy. Could it be contended, that the appellee in this case might claim in that character, against the heirs of his wife, in whose favor he had renounced all his rights, and had expressly agreed that they should have “the exclusive and entire management and control” of the premises in question, and that they should “receive and enjoy the rents, issues and profits,” arising therefrom? We think not. Upon what principle then can the appellee’s claim to the personalty bo sustained ? He has made the same renunciation and agreement, in favor of the executor or administrator, that he did in favor of the heirs of Mrs. Menger, and is equally barred in both cases.

The order of the Orphans court, for the granting of letters of administration to Robert Thompson on the estate of Ann W. Thompson is reversed, and the record in this case remanded, that letters of administration may be granted by the said Orphans court, to the person thereto entitled.

ORDER REVERSED AND PROCEDENDO AWARDED.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 11 cases

View all citing references →
1853–1854: 11855–1856: 21857–1858: 11867–1868: 11875–1876: 11883–1884: 11913–1914: 11925–1926: 11935–1936: 12005–2006: 118532026peak 1855 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Hutchins v. Dixon11 Md. 29 (1857)
  2. Cannon v. Cannon865 A.2d 563 (Md. 2005)
  3. Edwards v. Bruce8 Md. 387 (1855)
  4. Collins v. Phillips102 N.E. 796 (Ill. 1913)
  5. Jaworski v. Wisniewski131 A. 40 (Md. 1925)
  6. Waters v. Tazewell9 Md. 291 (1856)

Most recent

  1. Cannon v. Cannon865 A.2d 563 (Md. 2005)
  2. Hewitt v. Shipley181 A. 345 (Md. 1935)
  3. Jaworski v. Wisniewski131 A. 40 (Md. 1925)
  4. Collins v. Phillips102 N.E. 796 (Ill. 1913)
  5. Moody v. Hall61 Md. 517 (1884)
  6. Willis v. Jones42 Md. 422 (1875)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Brinckerhoff v. Brown, 7 Johns. Ch. 217 (1823) 14

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list