TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Henning v. Varner

David N. Henning v. Rosanna Varner, Adm'x d. b. n. c. t. a. of Thomas Henning

Henning v. Varner, 34 Md. 102 (1871)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals of Maryland · State Highest Courts
Decided
February 17, 1871
Judges
Stewart
Citations
34 Md. 1021871 Md. LEXIS 40
Headnotes
Residuary Legatees. A testator, by the first clause of his will, bequeathed his entire estate to his wife during widowhood, and directed that, at her death, the estate should be divided equally among his four children, if they were then living; and in case of the death of any of them before the widow, their children, if any, should take their shares respectively. By a subsequent provision in his will, the testator directed that a sum of money duo to his estate,- at the death of his wife’s mother, should, when received, be forthwith divided equally between his wife and children; the children •of any of the latter who might die meanwhile, to take in their parent’s stead. He further directed that the same disposition should be made of the proceeds of sale of a slave, should his wife sell her for cause; and should any of his tenants exercise the right of purchasing out their ground rents, the money so received was to go in like manner ; and further, that whatever his widow might be able to give to any of the children out of the estate, during her life, should be charged to their shares respectively, so that, ultimately, equal justice might be done to all. ■ Hbld : That under this will, there were no residuary legatees. To constitute parties residuary legatees, there must appear, from some provision of the will, its terms, or true construction, that the testator intended to bequeath to them the residue of his estate.
Summary
Appeal from the Orphans’ Court of Baltimore City. This appeal was taken from a decree of the Orphans’ Court of Baltimore city, refusing letters of administration, d. b. n. e. t. a., on the estate of Thomas Henning, to the appellant, and granting them to the appellee. Thomas ETenning, by his will, dated the 10th of August, 1830, devised and bequeathed all his estate, real, personal and mixed, to his wife, Elizabeth, so long as she remained a widow, and directed that after her death, his estate should be divided into four equal parts, provided all his children should be then living, and if any of them should die leaving heirs, such heirs should inherit their parent’s share. He bequeathed to his son, Daniel, one share, one share to his son, David, one share to his daughter, Ann Maria, and one share to his daughter, the appellee. He willed that whatever his widow might be able to give to any of the children, from time to time, out of the proceeds of his estate, might be charged to them, and their receipts taken therefor, so that ultimately equal justice might be done to all. The testator directed that a sum of money, supposed to be from eight to nine hundred dollars, due to his estate at the death of the mother of his wife, should, when received, be forthwith divided in equal shares between his wife and children; the children of the latter, who might have died meanwhile, to take in their parent’s stead. He further directed that the same disposition should be made of the proceeds of sale of his slave Louisa, should his wife sell her for cause; and if any of his tenants should exercise the right of purchasing out their ground rents, the money so received should go in like manner. He appointed his wife and his son Daniel his executors. The widow deceased without having married. Prior to her death, her son Daniel died, leaving no issue. Her other son, David, also died prior to her death; he left children, of whom the appellant is one. The appellant’s elder brother is a non-resident of the State. The two daughters, Ann Maria and the appellee, still survive.

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

Opinion of the Court — Stewart

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

Stewart, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This appeal, from the Orphans’ Court of Baltimore city, involves the right to letters of administration de bonis non cum testamento annexo, upon the estate of Thomas Henning.

The appellant'insists that he is entitled, as one of the residuary legatees, whilst the appellee claims as the nearest of kin.

Under the 34th section of the 93d Article of the Code, where letters of administration are to be granted, with a copy of the will annexed, and there are residuary legatees and no widow, the male residuary legatee is preferred to the female. This section has no reference to the degrees of kindred — the male; although an utter stranger, by blood, is preferred to the female, however near to the deceased by affinity or consanguinity. In such base, the daughter of the testator, although a residuary legatee, must be postponed to her nephew, the grand-son of the testator, a male residuary legatee. But this preference, according to the terms of the section, is only given where there are residuary legatees; and the appellant, to entitle him to be preferred, must show, from the true construction of the will, that he is not m'erely legatee, but a residuary legatee.

The bequest, by the first clause of this will, is made of all. the property of the testator, to the wife, during her widowhood, with the remainder thereof, limited over, at her death, to the other parties described in -the will, of which the appellant is one. Under the terms of this first clause, the testator disposes of all his estate, leaving no residue.

The subsequent provisions, as to the money due at the death of his wife’s mother, when received., to be equally divided between his wife and children, or grand-children; and the proceeds of any future purchase of ground rents, or from the contingent sale by his wife of the slave mentioned in the will, to be divided in the same manner, do not change the antecedent general disposition of his estate, so as to constitute the parties, who took under the first clause, residuary legatees.

*107 (Decided 17th February, 1871.)

Construing the will, with its various clauses, as one instrument, it does not appear, from those latter bequests in regard to any future assets, that the testator had in contemplation the disposition of any residue of his estate, or to alter the first bequest or general clause. There must appear, from some provision of the will, from its terms or true construction, that the testator intended to bequeath the residue of his estate to parties, to constitute them his residuary legatees.

A residuary legacy is a bequest of all the testator’s personal estate, not otherwise effectually disposed of by his will. 6 Bacon’s Abridg., sec. 1, p. 303.

We do not discover, from any of the provisions of the will, separately or conjointly considered, any intention to dispose of a residuum of his estate; and there are no residuary legatees jirovided for by the will, either by its language or legal construction, within the meaning of the section of the Code referred to.

The widow, children and grand-children take the portions given to them as legatees.

The Orphans’ Court committed no error in the refusal to recognize the right of the appellant as residuary legatee.

Decree affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1910: 11939: 119102026peak 1910 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Phillips v. Clark6 A.2d 220 (Md. 1939)
  2. Estate of O'Gorman6 Coffey 245 (Cal. Super. Ct. 1910)

Most recent

  1. Phillips v. Clark6 A.2d 220 (Md. 1939)
  2. Estate of O'Gorman6 Coffey 245 (Cal. Super. Ct. 1910)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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