Devecmon v. Shaw

Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1889 · Contracts

ContractsWillsTrustsConstruction of willsEquity jurisdictionwill constructiontrustee instructionsequity

Facts

John S. Combs's will appointed trustees to collect rents and income from real and personal property given to his daughter and charged them with duties concerning investment and disbursement of trust funds. Seeking guidance and protection in performing those duties, the trustees filed a bill asking the court to construe the will. All interested persons were made parties, and the principal dispute was whether the daughter, Althea Louisa Combs, took only a life estate or instead a fee in the realty and an absolute interest in the personalty subject to defeasance on stated contingencies. Those contingencies had not yet occurred when the decree was entered.

Issue

Whether the decree construing the daughter's estate under the will should be reversed as prematurely entered because the contingencies that could defeat her interest had not yet happened. Relatedly, whether a court of equity may construe the will when trustees seek instructions for the performance of their present duties.

Rule

If there is no matter in dispute and the application seeks only to declare future rights, courts will not entertain jurisdiction. But where trustees under a will seek the court's aid to instruct them as to their duties and protect them in the discharge of those duties, a court of equity may entertain the bill, construe the will, and determine the parties' rights thereunder; a party who invited that construction below cannot seek reversal on the ground that the decision was premature after losing on the merits.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Richmond, Virginia, a will names two trustees to manage a fund for Nora Ellis, collect investment income, and decide how much principal may be reinvested for her support. The trustees are unsure whether Nora's interest is presently absolute or subject to divestment if she later dies without descendants, so they file in equity for instructions and join all persons who could take under that alternative limitation.

Should the court most likely entertain the bill and construe the will now?

Explanation. The majority drew a line between mere declarations of future rights and cases in which trustees need present instruction and protection in discharging active duties. Where trustees under a will seek guidance about current administration, equity may entertain the bill and determine the parties' rights even though contingencies affecting ultimate ownership have not yet happened. (Derived from Devecmon v. Shaw (n.d.).)