Mitchell v. Holmes
High Court of Chancery of Maryland
[The two questions presented to the court in this case, (the facts of which will appear from the Chancellor’s opinion,) were, firstly, into what proportions was to be divided the income of certain trust property, devised, to two for life, and after the death of one of them, for the mutual benefit of the other, and her children ; remainder to the said children in fee.
Read the full summary
[The two questions presented to the court in this case, (the facts of which will appear from the Chancellor’s opinion,) were, firstly, into what proportions was to be divided the income of certain trust property, devised, to two for life, and after the death of one of them, for the mutual benefit of the other, and her children ; remainder to the said children in fee. And, secondly, whether a trustee, who, as executor, had received a commission on property, paid into the trust fund, should be allowed, as trustee, an' additional commission on the same property.]
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor:
In the will of the late Ignatius Semines, who died, in the year 1843, there is the following clause : “I give, and devise to Walter Mitchell, Esquire, my farm called Rose Hill, together with all the rest of my negroes,” (some being manumitted by a previous clause,) “stock of every description, and plantation utensils — in trust, to and for the following uses and purposes, that is to say : the income arising therefrom, to be applied tb the mutual benefit of my uncle, William Holmes, during the life of my said uncle, and my aunt Sarah Floyd; and after the death of my said uncle,…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Schloss v. RivesCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1932
- Executors of Baker v. JohnstonNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1885
- Raleigh Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. LeachSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915