| Volume 200, Volume 2, Page 473 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
ELLICOTT VS. ELLICOTT. 473 the result of a careful examination of the proof would be ad- verse to the pretensions of the plaintiffs. But, as the case stands, the 'court is relieved from the obli- gation of instituting such an examination, because, whether those papers stand or fall, the plaintiffs can make out no title to the relief prayed by their bill. If the will and deed of 1831 and 1832 are adjudged to be void, on account of the mental incapacity of Charles T. Ellicott to execute them, the proof is very strong to show, that the pa- per called the will, executed in December, 1834, is still less entitled to be treated as a valid and operative instrument, the entire current of the evidence demonstrating, that the intellect of the party signing it, was more infirm then, than when the two first papers were executed. In truth, this could not be otherwise, when the progressive effect of the principal cause of his imbecility is considered, a cause, which increased in in- tensity and force as the unhappy victim of it grew older. If the deed of 1832 is free from objection, then it follows, that the plaintiffs, who claim, under the will of 1834, have no title, because, all the property of the grantor passing under the former, there was nothing for the will to act upon. If, on the contrary, all these instruments should be pronounced void, and if the first two meet with that fate, unquestionably, the last can- not escape condemnation, then it follows, that the parties are remitted to their rights as heirs at law of Charles T. Ellicott» and since the decision of the Court of Appeals in the case of Porter vs. ^Iskew, 11 Gill & Johns., 346, it is clear, beyond dispute, that the whole estate, real and personal, of the intes- tate, descended to, and became the property of, Thomas Ellicott, the uncle of the deceased, to the exclusion of his other relatives, and that he, and he alone, under our act, to direct descents and statute of distributions, is the only person interested in his estate. The bill charges, and there has been some effort to prove, that the two first instruments were procured by the undue in- fluence and control of Thomas Ellicott over his nephew. But the complainants, I think, have entirely failed in establishing 41* |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
| Volume 200, Volume 2, Page 473 View pdf image (33K) |
|
Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!
|
An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact
mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.
Maryland State Archives