Legal Opinion · Dissent

Mercantile-Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Purifoy

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided April 4, 1977No. [Misc. No. 3, September Term, 1976.]Published

1DissentSmith, J.

I respectfully dissent.

We recently said in Wesley Home v. Merc.-Safe Dep. & Tr., 265 Md. 185, 198, 289 A. 2d 337 (1972), that “the cardinal *60principle of construction of wills [is] that the intention of the testator be carried out, as deduced from the ‘four corners’ of the will,” citing a number of Maryland cases. I regard it as manifestly improper to divine that intention by making use of a statute that did not come into existence until many years after the effective date of the instruments in the absence of a clear indication in the instruments that law of a later date should be used. I…

2Cases cited35 opinions

  1. Allied American Mutual Fire Insurance v. Commissioner of Motor VehiclesCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1959
  2. Bureau of Mines v. George's Creek Coal and Land Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1974
  3. Barry Properties v. Fick Bros. Roofing Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1976
  4. Janda v. General Motors Corp.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1964
  5. Goldsmith v. Mead Johnson & Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1939

30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API