Maryland independent. [volume] (Port Tobacco, Md.) 1874-current, 1906-06-29
Reeder vs.. Brown.


Judge Merrick has handed down his
opinion in the case stated in the cirolit
Court for this County, sitting in equity,
as to the construction Of two clauses Of
the will Of the late John T. stoddart.
The question at issue was as to what in
terest william T. stoddart aud his heir
tool, under the said will. The point
was decided in favor Of the heir of VIM.
T. stoddart. Messrs W Roy Stephen
son. Of Va. and A. Posey, Attorneys,
represented Mrs. Reeder, daughter and
heir Of William 7. stoddart, and Messrs.
Blair Of Washington City, aud Laurie
Mitchell represented Mrs. sallie R.
Reilly, daughter Of the late John I.
stoddart. Here is the opinion Of the
Court.
The cardinal rule in the construction
Of wills, is, that the intent Of the tesla
tor should DE sought out from the whole
instrument, aud il that intent and wish
can be fairly ascertained full effect
should be given to it and, so firmly fixed
is this rule that it sometimes becomes
necessary to give to words a meaning
4 and construction, unlike that which
/ upon their face they should seem to
l bear. 1t is manifest from the whole
scope and general plan Of this will, and
especially from Paragraph ?, that the
testator intended and desired to give TO
his daughter, Elizabeth S. Bowie, life
estate in the home place called West
Hatton and at her death, the same was
to pass to his grandson, WILLIAM TRUE
MAN SroDDART, and his heirs forever.
No language could be palmer or more
emphatic than this. No one is left in
doubt as to what the testator here
meant by the language used. This be-
ing so, and the wish and intent of the
testator being SO plainly expressed here,
vs. hat construction shall we give to the
Sth paragraph Of said will which will
not negative and violate the plain mean
ing and intent Of Paragraph as above
given, the said Paragraph containing
the only other allusion in the will TO
this divlse. The Sth paragraph reads as
follows ut is my will and desire
that should William Trueman Stoddart
die before he becomes of age, or in pos
session Of the aforesaid homestead ] &C
eupied in Charles County, Maryland,
called "West Hatton.n that it shall re
vert to the heirs then living Of my two
children, Mary I. Brown and Elizabeth
Stoddart Bowie, at the death Of the lat
ter, Elizabeth Stoddart Bowie.n 1t is
commended, on one side that the LAM
guage, "die before he becomes Of age or
in possession creates two contingent
cies, the happening Of either of which
will dvest the estate given by Paragraph
9 to William Trueman Stoddart and his
heirs. Il is claimed that the language
used means, that if William Trueman
Stoddart died either before he reached
twenty-one years, or having reached
that age died before he became in pos
session, by death Of life tenant, then the
estate passed away from him and his
heirs to the other devisees named in
Paragraph s. If this contention be cor
rect does it not tend to defeat the tesla
tors wish, as clearly expressed in Para
graph 2, since it would cut off entirely
the heirs OF the devisee2 Would it not
be constituting the testator's intent as
wishing to benefit William Trueman
Stoddart alone, without having any
thought or consideration for his heirs ?
Would it not be saying that the testator
meant that if the devisee died before the
life tenant, the heirs Of the devisee
should lose this homestead. and this in
the face Of his emphatic statement in
Paragraph 2, that he wished, when the
life estate ended, that this property
should pass to w. T. Stoddart and his
heirs forever Why should the testator
have used the word heirs at all if he de-
sired TO benefit William Truenlan Stod-
dart alone What meaning have the
words, '.if he dies before he comes of
age, y if W. T. Stoddart was not to take
an estate unless he outlived the life ten
ante They would be useless, idle sur
plusage, and his coming Of age would
amount to nothing il he was also to out
live the life tenant. Ii such had been
the testator's intention, he need only to
have said, ''if w. T. Stoddart dies before
coming into possession This simple
language would have made his wish-
plain But he did not mean this. He
was cultured and educated man, not
given to the use Of useless aud unmean-
ingless terms, and when he said in Para
graph ?, that he wished this home place,
at the death. Of the life tenant, to pass to
William Trueman Stoddart and his heirs
forever, he meant it every word He
never intended OF desired that the heirs
Of w. I. Stoddart should lose this home
stead, if their father happened to die be-
fore.the life tenant. When the testator
said, that it was his wish, if William
Trueman Stoddart died before he came
of age or in possession, that this prop
erty should pass to the others named,
he clearly meant, in view of what he had
so plainly said in Paragraph 2, that if
his grandson should die before he came
Of age, not having then come into pos
session Of this estate, it should pass as
stated. This being the view of the
Court, we think the word, or, should be
read as, and. We will, therefore, sign
decree in accordance with this view.