Gerke v. Colonial Trust Co.

83 A. 1092, 117 Md. 579, 1912 Md. LEXIS 129
CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland
DecidedFebruary 29, 1912
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 83 A. 1092 (Gerke v. Colonial Trust Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gerke v. Colonial Trust Co., 83 A. 1092, 117 Md. 579, 1912 Md. LEXIS 129 (Md. 1912).

Opinion

Stockbridge, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Two appeals, one from the Circuit Court No. 2 of Baltimore City, and one from the Circuit Court of said city, are embraced in the present record. Both deal with the same subject matter and the two apjteals are so inextricably interwoven that it is necessary to consider them together, and, as the result of such consideration, arrive at the proper order to be made in each case.

By the will of Charles Gerke it was provided that after the death of the testator’s wife, Elizabeth V. Gerke, there should be paid from the rest and residue of the testator’s estate the interest or income of $6,000 at 5% per annum, being $300 per year, to his son Walter Duncan Gerke, the same to be paid into his own hands, and not to or into the hands of another during the term of his natural life. The *581 principal sum of $G,000 was at no time payable to tbe said Walter D. Gerke, but upon Ms death was to go to and become the property of the issue of his body living at the time of his death. Mrs. Elizabeth Y. Gerke died in the year 1907, and by appropriate proceedings in the Circuit Court 'the Colonial Trust Company and Thomas Mackenzie were appointed trustees to carry out the .provisions of the will of Charles Gerke.

In the year 1899 Walter T). Gerke, who was then resident in California, was adjudged insane and committed to. the Mendocino State Hospital as an insane pauper. In that proceeding there was no committee or guardian appointed, either of the person or estate of Walter I). Gerke, and H was not until upwards of eight years later that the annuity provided for him by the will of his father came into existence. During all of that time he continued to be an inmate of the hospital, and was such at the time when all of the proceedings now to be considered were taken.

The annual interest or income provided by the will of Charles Gerke for the benefit of Walter 1). Gerke began to accumulate from the death of Mrs. Gerke, but the beneficiary being insane and no committee of the estate having been appointed, the trustees could not make any 'payments of the. income as it- accrued, and hence it has accumulated until at the present time it amounts to something over one thousand dollars. It is manifest that if Walter D. Gerke had not been insane the trustees could and ought to have paid over the interest to him from time to time in accordance with the will of Charles Gerke, without the intervention of any person or persons whatsoever. These trustees were administering their trust in the Circuit Court of Baltimore City, and were required to account to that Court for the discharge of their dirties as such trustee.

While matters stood thus, on -the 19th May, 1911, a bill was filed in the Circuit Court No. 2 of Baltimore City by Norman H. Gerke, claiming to be a son of Walter D. *582 Gerke, praying for subpoena against the Colonial Trust Company and Thomas Mackenzie, trustees, and by an amended bill filed on the 27th September, 1911, the Court was asked to appoint a committee to receive from the trustees the accumulated interest and income of $300, a year thereafter to accrue, or as an allternative for appointment of a trustee or receiver for the same purpose, and that the committee, trustee or receiver should apply the income to the support of the said Walter D. Gerke in such manner as might be for the best interests of the lunatic, or as the Court might direct. Norman H. Gerke, the plaintiff in this bill, and alleged son of the lunatic, was and is a resident of the State of Oregon, and simultaneously with the filing of the original bill be filed a request that Leigh Bonsai of Baltimore should be appointed as such committee.

One week before the filing of the bill of complaint in the Circuit Court No. 2 a citation was issued from the Superior Court of Mendocino County, California, the Court in which Walter D. Gerke had been adjudged a lunatic, commanding the appearance on the 22nd of May óf the lunatic to show cause why Charles E. Wilson, the secretary of the hospital where Walter D. Gerke was, should not be appointed' as his guardian, and on the 22nd of May upon the affidavit of the superintendent of the hospital that Gerke was unable to attend, the Court appointed Charles E. Wilson guardian of his person and estate. This proceeding it is admitted by counsel in these appeals was conducted in accordance with the laws of the State of California, was regular in all respects, and it was further admitted that the said Wilson, as guardian, at first gave bond for $600, and that thereafter an additional bond for -$1,500 was given.

On the 26th July, 1911, Charles E. Wilson, the guardian appointed in California, appeared to the bill of complaint of Norman H. Gerke in the Circuit Court No. 2, and filed his answer under oath, in which he alleges that he was entitled to receive from the trustees under the will of Charles *583 Gerke the moneys in their hands belonging to the said lunatic, and also the instalments of said annuity thereafter to become payable. Three days later Mr. Wilson filed his petition in the case in the Circuit Court where the trust under the will of Charles Gerke was being administered, praying that the trustees pay over to him as guardian of the lunatic the accumulations of the annuity and the instal-ments thereof which should thereafter become due and payable. The bill in the Circuit Court No. 2 was, upon the application of the attorney for the plaintiff, set for hearing upon the bill and answer of Charles E. Wilson, and in that condition all the allegations in the answer so far as they were material to the case there pending must be regarded as admitted to be true. The petition of Wilson in the Circuit Court was first answered by the trustees and subsequently by Norman TI. Gerke. The case in the Circuit Court No. 2 came on for hearing upon the bill and answer and by order of that Court on the 30th September-, 1911, the bill was ‘•'dismissed without prejudice.” The petition in the Circuit Court apparently also was taken up upon the petition and answers, and that Court on the 25th October, 1911, passed a final order directing the payment over of the accumulated income, and the income thereafter to accrue, to Charles E. Wilson, the duly appointed guardian of the person and estate of Waller D. Gerke under the proceedings in the California Court.

The contention of the appellant is that the proceeding for an adjudication in lunacy and the appointment of a committee is one which ordinarily is and should be instituted upon the initiative of a member of the family of the lunatic. It is undoubtedly true that in the vast majority of the cases such a proceeding is so instituted, hut that fact by no means precludes the institution of such a proceeding by some person other than a relative or member of (he family. It-is matter of frequent occurrence that proceedings of this *584 character are set in motion by some friend or acquaintance of a lunatic, or even by a law officer of the state where no such proceeding has been started by relatives and friends, and that with which the Courts are mainly concerned is not who institutes the proceedings, but whether the proceeding is for the best interest of the individual alleged to be lunatic, and of the people among whom he lives.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Mercantile-Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Slater
177 A.2d 520 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1962)
Ned v. Robinson
1937 OK 468 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1937)
Omer v. Omer
193 P. 1064 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1920)
Bliss Ex Rel. Jackson v. Bliss
104 A. 467 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1918)
Whiting v. Shipley
96 A. 285 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1915)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
83 A. 1092, 117 Md. 579, 1912 Md. LEXIS 129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gerke-v-colonial-trust-co-md-1912.