Case Name: Trippe vs. Frazier, et ux. et al.
Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1819-06
Citations: 4 H. & J. 446
Docket Number: 
Parties: Trippe vs. Frazier, et ux. et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the General Court and Court of Appeals of the State of Maryland, form 1800 ... [to 1826]
Volume: 4
Pages: 446–448

Head Matter:
Trippe vs. Frazier, et ux. et al.
tñ?ni806dnected certain of aer n»i i>y her executor, ceeliscertain^ega! and amon eothe‘ií alegacy”1!) one of H,e “which" child k'n^onthe'win- and'a legacy to 'a‘ scSoof m ty, if there should tion founüed bn otherwise tobe dls-íhíveaf dis?res”"! private poor of t to'111 Yn c o r p or «Ve d above"description. reaiCeítate“oidex-oFtSc'"^”™-qu.eáthee(f~--De-a ealfy’ «M? real county, shall be 'I-or^Sncertairuy! an,d,a'e 3y ascertaining the f^lesu That*the iSf cLwr T®fR fiMiiiesiuTchild died before the testatrix,) shall be considered as a lapsed^ legacy, and shall sink into the residuum of the estate for the benefit of the heirs at law of th’e testatrix. That the residuum of the estate remaining in the hands of tire executor shall result as real estate to the heirs at law of the testatrix. That the legatees in the will are not entitled to interest on their legacies except from the.day on which the executor sold the real pstate,
Appeal from a decree of Talbot County Court as a Court of Equity. Jinn Stevenson, a married woman, be-mg authorised by a marriage contract to make a will, did her will, dated the 8th of October 1806, direct certain real es*a^e t° he sold by her executor, and out of the proceeds'certain legacies to be paid. She died soon after-'var’ds, and her husband survived her several years, and Possesse<i the property, having a life-estate therein reserved to him under the marriage contract. After his death, executor sold the property, as directed by the will, on the 11th of June 1814, and the proceeds exceeded the amount ot the legacies. Ihe complainants, (now appel-lees,) as the heirs at law of the testatrix, filed their bill aSa’nst the executor, (the appellant,) claiming their shares or portions of the residuum, after the payment of the lega-c'es- • The defendant by his answer admitted the receipt ^8343 35, including the amount of the sales of the pro-devised to be sold, for house rent, and a debt due to testatrix; that after deducting payments and disburse» men*s amounting to §4815 76, there remained in his hands-balance due the estate of $3527 59. That the pecuni-ary legacies bequeathed amounted to §4390, all of which, is, the principal without interest, he had paid to the persons entitled, with, a very tew exceptions, and that he wasready to pay the whole, &c. unless two of the said pe-legacies were void, and should not be paid at all;. the one a legacy given one of the children oi It. Harrison, wh° died before the making of the will, and the other a !e-8acy §lven to a female charity school in Talbot county, if there should be such an institution founded on good prin- clple, otherwise to be distributed among the real distressed private poor of Talbot county, there being no incorporated school in Talbot county of the above description. The answer further stated, that he had declined to pay interest on any of the legacies, not knowing whether the legatees were entitled to interest before the lapse of one year from the date of the letters testamentary of the defendant. He claimed an allowance for commission, expenses, &c. The facts stated in the bill and answer being admitted by both parties, and the questions of law arising upon them being alone submitted to the consideration of the county court, that Court, [Earle, Ch. J. and Purnell, A. J.] after argument on both sides — Decreed, that the legacy left by the testatrix. to the real distressed private poor of Talbot county, should be considered void for uncertainty, and the impracticability of correctly ascertaining the objects of the bequest. That the legacies to one of the three children of R Harrison, (the said child having died before the testatrix,) should be considered as lapsed legacies, and should sink into the residuum of the estate for the benefit of the heirs at law of the testatrix. That the residuum of the estate remaining in the hands of the defendant, should result as real estate to the heirs at law of the testatrix, the same residuum being a part of the net proceeds of the sale of a house and lot in the city of Baltimore, which the testatrix directed to be sold, in and by her will. That the complainants were the heirs at law of the testatrix, and as such entitled to such shares or portion of the residuum as were claimed by them in their bill of complaint; and that the defendant, after making all proper deductions and allowance for commissions, payments of debts, funeral charges and legacies, made and to be made, and costs and expenses incurred, and to be incurred, and other reasonable disbursements on his part, all of which weie to be ascertained by the auditor of this court, should pay to the complainants their respective shares of the residuum then remaining in his hands, as executor and trustee of the testatrix, with interest thereon from the date of the decree; and that the legatees in the will of the testatrix were not entitled to interest on their legacies, except from and after the 11th of June 1814, that being the day on which the defendant sold the real estate of the testatrix. The defendant was, therefore, ordered not to pay interest on any of the legacies, except from and after the day of sale of the real estate. From that decree the defendant appealed to this court.
The cause was argued before Chase, Ch. J. and Johnson, Martin, and Dorsey, J.
Bullitt, for the Appellant.
The question is,' whether the legatees are entitled to interest on the legacies from the time of the death of the testatrix, or from the time the real estate was sold? He referred to Maxwell vs. f¥ettenhaU} k P. Wms. 26. Lloyd vs. Williams, 2 -5//e. 108. Atkins 'os. Daubeny, 1 Fg. Ca. Jib. 45. 2 Fonbl. 430. “ -
Goldsborough, for the Appellees,
teferred to 2 Fonbl. 188, 431. Crickett vs. Dolby, 3 Fes. 10 to 13.

Opinion:
DECREE AFFIRMED.