The Baltimore County union. [volume] (Towsontown, Md.) 1865-1909, 1890-12-13

Opinion of the Court of Appeals in the
Matter of StanSbury VS.. Hubner.-- We pub
lish below the full text of Judge Irvings opin-
ion in the case of Mrs, Eudocia Stansbury vs..
John Hubner and others, in which the title to
the "Eudowood' estate, near Towsontown, was
involved, the case being an appeal from the
Circuit Court for Baltimore county,
This is q bill in equity, upon case stated,
to procure the specific performance OF contract
for the sale of land The purchaser has re-
fused to comply on account of supposed de-
feet in the vendor title. The appellant claims
title under the will of her husband, Thomas
Stansbury, (the younger), who was devisee OF
the property now involved, under the will of
Thomas Stansbury ST., made in November,
1876. The Will of Thomas Stansbury, Ohe
younger) husband of the appellant, was made
31st March, 1856. The clause of the will of
Thomas Stansbury, Sr., which gives rise to this
suit, is as follows: i give and bequeath unto
Deborah Stansbury and Annie Powell my
daughters, all that tract of land wherein | now
live, called Daniels Gift together with Cars
Lot and 'Tracy's Park during their natural
life, and at their decease, the three tracts of
land mentioned above will and give unto my
grandson, Thomas Stansbury, son of my son
John, excepting the parts hereafter bequeathed
to him and the heirs of his body, so long as
they hold and till the same. Should he die
without heirs of his body, my will and desire
is that my grandson, Thomas Taylor, should
have it, him, his heirs forever; and if Thomas
should die without an heir, then the afore-
mentioned land to fall unto my grandson James
Taylor to him, his heirs and assigns forever
The question in the case arises on the con-
struction and effect of the 'solong as they hold
ard till the same which follow the words ito
the heirs of his body
This devisee was of an estate tail general to
Thomas Stansbury, Jr.. and the only conten-
ton is as to the operation of the words which
fol no Eroif of Of ba ofata 70 hai
of Thomas Stansbury's body. BY regular con-
veyances in which all parties interested united,
this estate tail was on the 14th of August, 1917,
docked and turned into fee in Thomas STAINS
bury, Tr. The life tenants are all dead and
Thomas Stansbury, Jr., died in 1857, leaving an
heir Of his body, who is now dead but by his
will, dated as hereinbefore stated, he gave all
his property of every kind to his wife, the APP
pellant, who has continuously held and titled
the same ever since her husbands death. The
contract under which she agreed to sell to the
appellees was dated May 28th, 1890. These
facts are all part of the case stated in the
record.
"There can be no doubt that the testator in
tended to give the property to his grandson,
Thomas Stansbury and the heirs of his body
so long as he had any, for there is no effort to
devise over, except in failure of such heirs.
The devise over was bad for want of proper re-
striction of such failure; and we only advert
to it for the purpose of noting the fact that
there was no attempt to devise over to take eff
feet because of failure to hold and till the land,
but only on failure of heirs of the body.
1T was a condition subsequent which was
attempted to be imposed on the devisee and the
heirs of his body; and that condition was, in
our opinion, wholly imperative and void. 1t
was an attempt to do that which the law will
not permit to be done. He undertakes to pre-
scribe the way in which the property was to be
enjoyed by the holders thereof, as his devlsees
in fee tail, which estate by the docking of the
entail has become fee, and which estate by
the force of the Act of 1920, would have de-
scended as fee even without the docking con-
veyances For some reason, not disclosed, but
possibly with the hope of promoting thrift and
preventing the squandering Of the estate the
testator tries to prevent their failure to cultivate
the land and endeavors to insure its being kept
in the family by making its restriction con-
dition of continuing to hold it. The devise is
to the grandson and to the heirs of his body so
long as they hold and till the same Mani
testify it is condition the testator designed
should follow the land into the hands of the
successive takers as heirs of the body of the
devisee. To hold in that connection must
mean TO RETAIN TO keep These are mean
ings assigned TO the word in Worcester's Die
tionary and are the only meanings which make
sense in that connection. In Andrews Die
tionary of Law, as relating to land, it is said to
embrace the idea of actual possession The
same authority says that in the habendum
clause of deed TO have ana to hold &C., the
words to hold include the two-fold idea of
actual possession of the thing and being in
vested with the legal title The definition in
Burrilps Law Dictionary of the word hold is
to the same effect. In Sergeant & Rawle,
page 800, it has the meaning of retain 1t
would seem therefore to be plain attempt to
restrain alienation which is void as against
public policy.
"'Conditions are not sustained when they
are repugnant to the nature of the estate grant
ed, or infringe upon the essential enjoyment
and independent rights of property, and tend
manifestly to public inconvenience. condi-
ton annexed to conveyance in fee, or by
devise that the purchaser or devisee should not
alien, is unlawful and void " 4 Rents Com
mentaries, p. 143--4 & 5; Vim, Alb, p. 103. pl.
%; 4Gray, 348. Gleason VS.. Fayermather. The
condition under consideration moe clearly in
dicates design to restrain the alienation of the
e:tNes devised than the language of the will in
Newkerk VS.. Newkerk, 2Caines, 346 where the
devise was to persons in case the same continue
to inhabit the town of Henley, otherwise not
In this last mentioned case the Court held that
it was in restraint of alienation and consequent
ly void.
bill will be remanded that a decree may pass
for the specific performance of the contract of
sale set up. Decree reversed and cause re-
manded."
Stockholders Meeting .-The annual meet
ing of the stockholders of the Baltimore Coun-
ty Agricultural Society was held at the Carroll
ton Hotel Baltimore, on Saturday last, for the
purpose of electing Board of Managers for the
ensuing year. The attendance was very much
larger than is usual on such occasions, showing
that the stockholders are taking an active and
commendable interest in the affairs of the
Society. DIR. G. NJ. Bosley was called to the
chair, and Mr.. H: c: Longnecker was chosen
secretary. A resolution was adopted that here
after no one shall be eligible as a member of
the Board of Managers except those who are
stockholders. Eighteen gentlemen were then
placed in nomination for members of the Board
and the vote by shares of stock resulted in the
choice of the following VIM. Fell Johnson,
w. S. Powell, D. NJ. Matthews, Alex: McCor-
mick, Jr., Fred Won Kapff, William Hops, D.
H. Rice, William H. Wight, c. Lyon Rogers,
John c. Bosley, E. Herman and Samuel G..
Croker. There are only two changes in the
Board-Messrs Won Kapf and Herman sue
ceeding Messrs. w. jeff. Shanklin and William
B. Cockey. The new Board will hold its first
meeting at the office of Mr.. William S. Powell,
217 Bowly's Wharf, Baltimore. Saturday, De-
cember 18th, at II NJ.
Among those who attended the stockholders
meeting were DIR. G. NJ. Bosley, E. Cuttings
Merryman, Fred Won Kapff, VIM. Fell John
son, D. NJ Matthews, W. S. Powell, William
B. Sands, John B. Miller, E. Herman, Chas. S.
Geo. r. Buchanan, H. c. Longnecker, Patrick
OBrien, W. jeff Shahklin, G. Lyon Rogers,
Alex. Mccormick, Jr., Samuel G.. Croker, D.
H. Rice, William Hops, John l. Anderson,
John b. NJ. Jenifer, Edward S. Peerce, William
Grason, John E. Swift and others.
Sales for Taxes.-Caleb s. Hobbs, auction
eer, sold at the Court House on Tuesday, for
County Treasurer George w. Yellott, the fol-
lowing pieces of property on which taxes are
due for the year 1889:
Eighteen acres in the 18th district, assessed to
Andrew b. Cross, toJohn w. Burns for Sc.
Seven acres in the 18th district, assessed to
David Carroll, to Louis w. Held for $43.
A lot 20 by LAT feet at the southeast corner
of Willow and Cold Spring avenues, 9th dis
trict, assessed to Henry r. Curley, to j. b.
Chlds for $4S.
A lot 14O by 200 feet at Govanstown, 9th dis
trict, assessed to George g. Hooper, to ]. ].
Lindsay for S54.
Lot 531 new No., QO6 old No., in the 18th
district on east side of Second street, assessed
to John N. Foss, to the County Commissioners
for S92.
Three acres on the west side of the Philadel-
phia pike, 18th district, assessed to Ann M.
Frederick, to the County Commissioners for
$50.
Ten acres in the 18th district, assessed to f. ].
Brown trustee TO J. T. Lindsay for $50.