Temple v. Board of Commissioners

MacRae, J.: The first exception was t > the admission of the testimony of J. Heywood Sawyer, who, after stating that he is an attorney at law, and has been practicing in North Carolina since 1878, that in. the course of his business connected with the subject-matter of the present litigation, he has thoroughly examined into the law of Maryland, and thinks, from this examination, he is qualified to state what that law is on this subject, and testifies, in substance, that, by the decisions of the Court of Appeals of that State, devises and legacies to charitable uses cannot be sustained and enforced. The objection to this testimony is that it is incompetent and inadmissible. The existence of an unwritten law of another State, or foreign country, must be proved by competent witnesses. Hooper v. Moore, 5 Jones (50 N. C.), 130. The other exception was to the judgment of his Plonor confirming the judgment of the Clerk, which directs the distribution of the fund in the hands of the administrator between J. S. McCoy, one of the distributees, and J. L. Hinton, assignee of the other distributees, of that part of the personal estate of John A. Gambrill, deceased, as to which he died intestate, to the exclusion of the defendant William Thomas, who claims as the representative of his deceased *41 wife Mary A. Thomas, and the Board of Commissioners of Pasquotank County, who claim, as trustees, to hold the fund and administer it for the benefit of the poor of said county. The' testator bequeathed the sum of $1,000 in trust to Mary A Morgan, for the benefit of Mrs. Mary A. Scott, the interest to be paid her during her life, “and at her decease, Mrs. Morgan to distribute the principal, as her judgment may determine, for the benefit of the poor of said county.” This will was made in the State of Maryland, where the testator resided, and where it is subject to be construed by the rules of the common law. It will, in the Courts of North Carolina, have the same construction, as if it had been made here, unless it shall appear by judicial decisions, or by the opinions of men learned in the law, that a different construction would prevail in Maryland. Worrell v. Vinson, 5 Jones (50 N. C.), 91. It has been adjudged by the Court below, upon competent evidence, as we have seen in our examination of the first exception, that by the laws of Maryland this bequest is void, and the laws of (hat State govern the exposition of the testator’s will, because he was there domiciled at the time of its execution and of his death. Worrell v. Vinson, supra; Allen v. Pass, 4 Dev. &. Bat. (20 N. C.), 77. The trustee, Mary A. Morgan, who'married the defendant Thomas, and died, could have had no beneficial interest in the fund if the bequest had been held good, and the defendant Thomas, her surviving husband, can have no interest in it, because of the failure of his wife to execute the trust in her lifetime. It is admitted that the residuary .clause in the will of John A. Gambrill has been declared .void by the Courts of Maryland, and it is further admitted that the defendants McCoj'' and Hinton are entitled to the fund, if the same cannot be held by the Commissioners of Pasquotank as trustees, *42 or by William- Thomas as representative of the trustee Mary A. Thomas. The cause being now properly constituted in Court, and the parties claiming the fund being present in the action, so that a determination of the controversy will bind all, it may now be decided, as suggested in McKoy v. Guirkin, 102 N. C., 21, “whether the bequest for the benefit of the poor is valid, or must return to legatees under the will, or to the testator’s next of kin.” Judgment affirmed.