Statement - Relative to Estate of George H.
Kennard,
Deceased, being a 1/6 interest in Lot N. W. Corner of Barre and
Sharpe Streets in Baltimore City - and to that of
the Subrents arising thereout.
As Written In The Hand of Baltis H. Kennard, Esq.
There is a note written, it appears, as an afterthought that states: Note - This has been written on a (BJ's best guess is the next word is) desk ____ belonged to Baltis Branson who created the property in question. As a historic fact it deserves note.
Abstract history of the same.
By assignment, dated the 11th Sept. 1841, and of record among the Land Records of Baltimore County, (now City) in Liber T.K. No. 312 Folio 176, __, Mary Branson conveyed to William H. Kennard, Senior, In Trust, for the benefit of Baltis H. Kennard, Margaret L. B. Hilleary, (then Kennard) William H. Kennard, then junior, Ann M. Kennard, George H. Kennard, and Sophia L. Webb, (then Kennard) the lot as above mentioned, which by Indenture bearing date the 25th October 1796, and of record as aforesaid in Liber, W.G. No. YY Folio, 457.--- was leased by John Eager Howard to Baltis Branson for 99 years renewable forever, subject to the yearly rent of Eighteen pounds, (Forty-eight dollars) payable on the first day of September in each year. Together with the improvements, and inclusive of the Subrents re____on the said ground, but subject to the operation thereof, and to the assignments made by Baltis Branson.
(To learn more about the gentleman that Baltis Branson had this agreement with click on these numbers to go to various pages on the web about him. 1, 2, 3) Still to add more links.
At the time of the death of Baltis Branson besides the lot, there remained the following rents. One of $48.00, One of $40.00, and $4.00 making $44.00. One of $31.00, one of $31.00, and one of $48.00, in all a total of $202.00. Out of this sum, however, $48.00 is taken to pay the original ground rent of $48.00. This was, and is paid by --- the first mentioned $48.00 rent, which arises out of the corner sub rent created by Baltis Branson (few undiscernable words) created Said rent is paid from the ______ and accepted by the owner of the original rent of $48.00. ____ deducted from the $202.00 the sum, as the actual yield is $154.00.
Mary Branson was the widow of Baltis Branson, and derived the above named property from him by Will dated on or about the 29 May 1830. Which Will was duly administered. In the assignment from Mary Branson, above mentioned, the Trust reserved to her a Life Estate in the property. After her death, then for the use and benefit of the above named Children of William H. Kennard the Trustee, absolutely as tenants in common, to be equally divided between them Share and share alike. Any child dying under age and without issue the share of the one so dying to descend to the survivor or survivors; and in case all the said Children should die under age and without issue, then in trust to William H. Kennard the trustee absolutely.
Mary Branson lived over twenty years, and received the revenue of the property for that time. At the time of her death in about 1862, all the children named in the assignment had attained to legal age. All of them lived in Baltimore City, except George H. Kennard, who had gone abroad. The said property therefore, vested in the aforementioned persons, each one of whom was entitled to a distinct and undivided 1/6 interest in the same, being a distinct estate in each. William H. the Trustee was then living. For his life time he collected the rents, and regularly paid over to the five parties their 1/6 interest. He retained the 1/6 interest of George H. Kennard with the hope that the latter would return, but William H. Kennard, the Trustee died in 1873 and George H. Kennard, had not returned.
After the death of the Trustee, the ___ property, except what the trustee had collected, came in possession of the five parties above, under the law the five parties were the trustees of the absent brother. They were also his legal heirs and supposed at the time took his share under the assignment. In any view however, did not want to settle the matter by any summary action till the remotest period, hoping that George would return. Nor were they obliged to do so. And, indeed, under all the perplexing circumstances of the case the holders of the property have acted a creditable part. They have fully conformed to the law and to the principles of equity, and only acted when the necessities of the case demanded action, and although that action brought in the complication which new claimants brought into the action, they secured the property, which was in the interest of the absent brother, as well as themselves, and which under the law they were bound to do. For were there no lease, there were no property, and, hereafter, should any event arise to challenge what has been done, the action of the five original parties would stand clear in the law.
The five collected the rents of $154.00 in the proportion of 1/5 each. On the 6th day of October 1876 by deed of record in Liber G. R. No. 754. Folio 366 _ William H. Kennard sold to Ann M. Kennard his interest in the property. This interest was his 1/6 and a 1/5 of the 1/6 of George. On the 12th July 1883 by deed of record in Liber R.T.A. No 773 Folio 129 as aforesaid Baltis H. Kennard sold his 1/5 interest to Sophia L. Webb, which included a 1/6 and a 1/5 of George.
William H. Kennard and Baltis H. Kennard have borne their full proportionate share of costs and outlay, the same as the three other parties under the proceedings had, and which will appear in the proper place in this statement.
In 1895 the original lease under which the property held was about to expire; And in view not only of the interests of the three, but in the interest of a large and valuable property that owed its existence to the lease, which might suffer by a failure to renew the lease, and from which might spring suits for damages and overwhelm the three in ruinous loss; it was, therefore deemed of the highest importance to secure the Renewal of the Lease, and an effort was made accordingly. The holder of the original annuity of $48.00 had to be found, as he was the Lessor - the one to knew the lease. This was no easy matter when the owner was found, then the question of title presented itself. The interest in George was equal in degree to that of each of the other five one sixths, and if the title to that 1/6 could not be produced, a Renewal of lease could neither be had nor demanded.
George
At this time George had not been heard from in any form for 35 years, at this time of writing, going on 39 years. The last heard from him was a letter received by his Father, still in possession, dated July 17, 1860. This letter settled the question that he had attained legal age, he being born in 1837. In the nature of the case, however, had there been no evidence as to his legal age, that view would have had to be taken as the safest, and attended with the least expense, and doubtless the court would have taken that view. And now since I recall the matter as to his age, I think he was of age when he left Baltimore the last time.
It was deemed, therefore, in order to obtain legal title to his 1/6 interest to administer his estate as the only recourse. This 1/6 interest being an Estate in George, and there being no Will to direct its distribution, all his immediate next of kin were his legal heirs; for though George took this Estate under the assignment, he held it as an estate outside of the assignment, and as it stood to be distributed by the laws of the state.
His living heirs who were entitled to take ___ Baltis H. Kennard, Margaret L. P. Hilleary, William H. Kennard, Ann M. Kennard, Sophia L. Webb, Adaline S. Hooper, Edward M. Kennard, and Louisa Kennard, the last two named being children of Branson P. Kennard, deceased. It was intended to make as brief as possible, and as speedy as possible the proceedings of administration. A deed was drawn conveying the whole 1/6 interest of George to the three parties in the proportion in which they held it, by the other remaining parties named above and at the same time prepare all other papers in the case, and thus conclude it without delay.
It was thought, for reasons well known, and, therefore, not necessary to mention here, that all would sign the deed. One nephew and niece declined to sign the deed without participation in a full share of the estate of George. While this was not to be desired - perhaps it is just as well in every view, and neither doubt nor cloud now rests in the title as to any heirs known. An administration therefore had to be taken, in effect, as though George were dead as a matter of fact.
As stated above there were eight heirs, six took an equal share each: the nephew and niece 1/2 each of one equal share making seven divisions of the estate. Upon this basis, the estate was settled.
This turn of affairs delayed matters for some time. Money was needed, and under the then conditions time was required to provide it. The affair was serious, however, as to its main feature. The Lease was about to expire. Something had to be done to secure its Renewal. By my discretion the holder of the original fee was seen and requested to give a written guarantee that the Lease would be renewed when proper title was furnished. The guarantee was dated Sept. 20, 1895, and signed by John E. Semmes [look for his name in the listing] the holder of the Fee. This was within a month of the expiration of the Lease, and made secure for the time being the interest of the property, which had it failed, that interest would have been wrecked.
Following this specific action, nothing was done for some time. Various causes led to this delay, one which it is well to mention was that a bill was pending in the legislature, and which passed touching just such cases as this one, and the benefit of the provisions of which were desirable for this; for every guard was necessary to be thrown around this case to avoid possible loss to many persons. In the meantime the nephew was urgently clamoring, and towards the last threatening for his share. While this of itself did not amount to much, yet it was important to close the matter.
Now so much time had elapsed since George had been heard from, and as matters stood, his interests were held by a very uncertain tenure, besides which the Renewal of the Lease, as stated, was quite as important as the title to his interests. An interview was had with the nephew at which the matter reached a definite ____ as to him. He agreed to accept $100.00 clean, and clear of costs for the 1/7 share of himself, and sister. It was then determined to pay the same to Mrs. Adaline S. Hooper who was an equal heir with all the other parties, though she had not demanded any share, and had agreed to sign the deed accordingly. She accepted said sum of $100.00 clean and clear of costs in full satisfaction of her 1/7 share.
It is proper to state at this point, and it is equally important to remember what is stated, That the parties to be paid the $100.00 were to share their proportion of costs of all the ________. Some of these costs do not appear in the orphan's Court, and Circuit Court proceedings but these are deeds recording a Lease and recording that will add much more costs, And when the whole total of costs alone are shown, it will be found that the two 1/7 interest paid $200.00 with a 2/7 share of the costs, they will have quite received their 1/7 share each in that sum less the costs. Furthermore had this matter been put in the hands of a Lawyer who knew nothing of its history, and would have had to study it out, they would have been little left of the 1/6 interest.
To return to where the regular order was left in the statement. The payment of the sum of $200.00 together with unknown costs to arise, it was estimated that the sum of $500.00 would be required to meet the demands of the case, and as it turned out those demands will quite consume that sum. The five original parties who held the property for different periods of time, would proportionately have to produce that sum, First as to sums respectively due the estate and ____ such costs to which they were chargeable. No monies were actually to proceed from the estate. This was the better and safer plan: for any sale of the interest would have involved and embarrassed the property, and would have only produced the sum of the 1/6 value of the lot. The sum of rents being 641.67 would, if refused to be returned by those who collected them, had to be recovered by suit, and proceedings of this sort, would have wrecked the whole interest.
Moreover, each , now, of the seven were entitled to a distributive share of 1/7 under the law, and not by virtue of their having held a 1/5 interest of the estate. They were liable to suit and costs by act of the law for what they held, and even their 1/7 share which they already held, was not theirs till the law gave it to them, and under a sale, the law might have demanded the whole1/5 that they held. So that the plan adopted was safest and cheapest. The five original parties held 1/5 of the estate. The difference between 1/5 and 1/7 just made up the shares of 2/7, so that the production proportionately from the five of that sum of difference was all that was actually required to satisfy the new demands, except the sums of costs on their own distributive shares.
It is well to add just at this point that the purpose of this mode of proceeding was to confirm in the three the legal title they held proportionately of the estate of the deceased. An administration was determined upon on that line, to merely furnish the money that was needed, but to administer the whole 1/6 interest. Ann M. Kennard and Sophia L. Webb provided the sum of $500.00 or so much thereof as might be needed upon which the administrator might draw when needed. This was done however with the proper understanding that Baltis H. Kennard, William H. Kennard and Margaret P. B. Hilleary were to reimburse them for their proportionate share of costs and disbursements, and that Ann M. Kennard and Sophia L. Webb were to be respectively responsible only for their own proportionate share of costs and disbursements.
An administration was commenced July 9, 1897. Baltis H. Kennard administrator, who gave bond with Ann M. Kennard and Sophia L. Webb, as his sureties in the sum of 2,056.00.The administration closed substantially July 19, 1898. From the beginning of 1895 to 1898, and still on - though it had been a cause of concern to me for years preceding - I have had this matter continuously on hand as a matter of law, and though it has been beset with every sort and kind of difficulty legally and otherwise, I think it has been securely managed and settled. The particulars as to the sum administered and how obtained, and then abstract of the distribution made under the administration will follow, with other proceedings related thereto.
The property came in possession in 1873. Not only the 1/6 interest in the lot, but the share of rent from 1873 on to the time of these proceedings was exacted by the nephew. So, in order to cover every point and cut off any complaints hereafter it was deemed prudent to administer the whole sum up to the close of administration. That interest comprised two values, the lot and the rents. The 1/6 interest in the Lot was a unit of value that remained the same. The rents were a continuous cumulative value, and were collected for a period of twenty-five years. In 1873 only one rent of 31.00 - and in 1898 - that 31.00 off as the administration closed before it was collectible - just 25 years.
How the values of the estate were derived.
First as to the Lot. It has been shown that the total sum of Rents was $154.00 annually. The 1/6 interest of that sum is 25.66 2/3 the annual rent interest of the 1/6 interest. It was thought, and agreed by all the parties that 6 pr centum was a fair valuation, under all the circumstances. The sum of 25.66 2/3 capitalized at 6 pr ct. in round numbers is $4277.77. This sum then is the lot value of 1/6 interest. The same sum of 25.66 2/3 multiplied by 25, being the number of years the rent was received - gives the sum of 641.67, in round numbers.
Those sums were administered Lot 1/6 interest $ 427.77
Rents 1/6 “ $ 641.67
Total sum administered $1069.44
Abstract of distribution in Orphan’s Court
Margaret J. B. Hilleary, in Gross 1/5 $ 213.89
Ann M. Kennard 1/5 $ 213.89
do [ditto] do 1/5 $ 213.89 Sophia L. Webb do 1/5 $ 213.89
do. do 1/5 $ 213.89 Sum Administered $1069.44
Orphan’s Court costs $ 160.08
Net sum distributed $ 909.36 …
Proceeding in Circuit Court
July 1898 Petition filed. This contained a full account of the history of the entire case, from the deed of gift – a copy of which was filed, certified: Reference to the original lease; the absence of George H. Kennard; the administration of the 1/6 interest; Named the deed from Baltis H. Kennard and all the parties to the three – copy filed – certified; Stated the death of Mary Branson; that of William H. Kennard, trustee – Stated in whom the property would vest after close of administration; Stating that a renewal of lease of the whole property was desired, and asking for the appointment of a new trustee in stead of Wm. H. Kennard, deceased, so that the trustee so appointed could convey the legal title to the persons who hold the property by joining in the Renewal of Lease.
The cause was entitled Wm. H. Kennard, and all the parties vs. Baltis H. Kennard. The petition was signed by all the parties in interest. The defendant filed his answer, admitting the facts set forth in the petition, and writing in the request for the appointment of a new trustee. A paper was filed requesting the appointment of Baltis H. Kennard, he being the oldest son whom the Code of Maryland designates as legal successor in such cases. Accordingly on July 19, 1898, the Court signed a decree appointing Baltis H. Kennard Trustee. He will write in the Renewal of the Lease so as to confirm all title to the three parties who hold the property. Charles H. Quigley was attorney for Plaintiffs, and Baltis H. Kennard for Defendants. Costs $42.00 and at this point is proper. It would have been too much of a risk to have omitted these proceeding.
The title to the property was in Father, and still had its being in the law, and the property without that title was incomplete as a possession that could pass to other parties; and in this state titles similar to the situation in which this one was placed would not pass for as it stood. No proof was shown in whom the title vested on the face of the assignment the property was as likely to be his, as any of the beneficiaries.
The _____ carried him as well as the children for whom he was trustee, and in the event of a certain contingency he was remainder Man, and would have taken all the property. These proceeding clear of all these difficulties; and now as a matter of Record in the Circuit Court of Baltimore City and under the sanction of the court, the chain of title is shown to end in the three persons, who now hold the property. Had it not now been done while those interested were living, and Knew the facts, it would have seriously embarrassed the property and encumbered it with expense, it could have hardly borne, at some future time, and it was further thought, that as so much trouble and expense had arisen in the extrication of the title in other features, it would not do – to pass this last named feature, while the time was opportune without clearing it away also.
To return, now, in order to the administration. The administration was commenced, as stated, July 9, 1897. On about the middle of September the nephew desired a payment under his view of the matter. The time was far in advance of his right, or that of any other to receive any payment (in fact the whole case had to be carefully guarded, and it took much patience to do so.) It was deemed best to gratify the nephew as he put his request on the ground of a special need. Upon consultation and consent on Sept. 27th 1897 Edward M. Kennard was paid $25.00 on account of his claim. At this point it may be said, that the belief is justified, that he [written in above the line to be inserted at this point] “may be of the opinion that he” did the estate a service, in accepting the sum he received, though it was an offer of his own, when he was shown the costs as they were then but other facts have arisen since, not then known, one was that a sum of 48.00 without any other costs would have to be paid to the holder of the original rent before he would renew the lease. It is hoped, however, that less may be accepted, as a justification of the ____ above stated.
It is well to further state, that he, Edward M. Kennard, intimated that he might consider the arrangement made as null, and that he would fall back on his rights as a full distributee if the matter of the estate was delayed in settlement. This however, was received with the spirit of allowance, as vapering [The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000: Vaporing is boastful or bombastic talk or behavior] did the source more harm than any other.
The matter is all settled now finally as will be shown, and this incident would not have been mentioned had it not been necessary as a matter of business why that 25. was paid, and it is desired that it be so regarded, and that nothing be remembered but the fact of the payment of the money. This desire is expressed more in the spirit of expediency than in that of charity. It is better to stand in good terms with all; for one can never tell from where a favor may be needed. It is very important, as heretofore stated, that when all the costs of this case are paid, in all of which the nephew should have participated, he will have quite got his full share and the others also, and furthermore, had this matter been managed outside of the family, little would have been left for anybody. This view has been mentioned in another place in these notes, but its importance justifies its repetition. After the administration had progressed to a point that justified the payment of money to claimants a Deed was prepared and executed in which Baltis H. Kennard, William H. Kennard, Adaline S. Hooper, Samuel H. Hooper, her husband, Edward M. Kennard, and Louisa Kennard assigned all their interest in the Estate of George H. Kennard, in the 1/6 interest as before hereindescribed, both as to Lot and to rents to Margaret J. B. Hilleary 1/5 and Ann M. Kennard, and Sophia L. Webb 2/5 each. This Deed was dated and executed the 17th June 1898 and is of record in Liber R. O. No. 1739, Folio 55. This Deed put all the interests in the last named persons, which together with their own respective rights gave all the interests in the Estate to them, which was accordingly so confirmed to them in the proportions stated under the distribution of said estate in the Orphan’s Court. Release to Administrator and by Deed of Administrator _.
[Baltis notes distribution of $25.00 to Edward M. Kennard on 27th Sept 1897 and another to him on 17 Jun 1898. Fifty dollars was given to Louisa Kennard and $100.00 to Adaline S. Hooper “in the presence of her husband”, both on 17 Jun 1898.] …
[After more bookkeeping and explanation re: dispursements, Baltis goes on to state]
The author of this statement was both administrator and Attorney at Law generally, and his attention to the latter required careful thought as to the law, and a search of the records for 100 years.
[On the 30th page of this document, he states] Virtually nothing came to me from my commissions. The sum of 106.94 was the award of the Court without a word from me. Had it been made known to the court the labor time and legal attention required, a counsel would have been allowed a sum for his services that would have heavily added to the cost. Nor do I think it proper to do all I have done, and the three parties in the case claim the benefit. I thought it best to take the commissions and dispose of them as I have. The figures tell with more force than assumed claims. As this matter has run, however, it has cost me in time labor and anxiety, and I may add skill, the worth of which will never be known. It has been a case/care to me for years, not in my own interest, but in the interests of my sisters who were interested. I feared sometimes m life would hardly hold out long enough to finish the matter up. It was not clear in my mind what course to pursue, and I found that ____ in the line of law were equally _____ed in their views.
But it is now settled, and my only motive in settling it was to secure my sisters property. Briefly it is proper to recall the basis of settlement with the three parties. They were to participate in the total costs. The rough estimates then made as to costs outside of what they agreed to take were 300.00.
[Following this text is more explanation and detail of payments in the original document.]
