clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search
search for:
clear space
white space
The Annotated Code of the Public General Laws of Maryland, 1924
Volume 375, Page 2959   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

TESTAMENTARY LAW. 2959

personal property may be determined. Fowler v. Brady, 110 Md. 208; Daugherty v,
Daugherty, 82 Md. 231; Gibson v. Cook, 62 Md. 260.

Under this section orphans' court has jurisdiction where a petition alleges that one
of two executors has omitted to return certain property in inventory, and to return
in list of debts certain money which came into executor's hands before testator.'s
death. The fact that executor claims title to property is immaterial. This section
distinguished from sec. 252. Linthicum v. Polk, 93 Md. 95; Bowers v. Cook, 132 Md.
437.

A petition setting out that one of administrators has received money which he has
not accounted for, but alleging no concealment, is not within purview of this section,
and hence right of appeal is not regulated by sec. 254. Cummings v. Robinson, 95
Md. 87; Pratt v. Hill, 124 Md. 256.

This section is applicable as long as there are assets belonging to an estate which
have not been brought in or accounted for. Wilson v. McCarty, 55 Md. 280.

This section referred to fn deciding that administrator would not be removed for
retaining money with consent of party entitled to it and in belief that he had a
right so to' do, without court's first determining that such retention was improper
and directing an account. Jones v. Harbaugh, 93 Md. 284.

This section referred to in holding that an administrator would not under the
circumstances be removed for failing to render an account in time—see notes to sec. 3.
Belt v. Hilgeman, Brundige Co., 138 Md. 134.

The remedy provided by this section pointed out in construing sec. 100—see notes
thereto. Dunnigan v. Cummins, 115 Md. 298.

This section referred to in construing sec. 252—see notes thereto. Macgill v. Hyatt,
80 Md. 257.

See notes to secs. 236 and 254.

An. Code, sec. 245. 1904, sec. 244. 1888, sec. 240. 1831, ch. 315, sec. 12.

254. If, upon the answer to any petition or bill filed under the pro-
visions of the two preceding sections, either party shall require it, the
court shall cause an issue or issues to he made up and sent to the circuit
court for the county, or the superior court of Baltimore city, the court of
common pleas, or the Baltimore city court, as the case may be, to be
there tried and disposed of as other issues from the orphans' court; and
either party to such bill or petition may appeal to the circuit court for the
county, or the superior court of Baltimore city.

The appeal provided by this section is exclusive of appeal provided by art. 5,
sec. 64. The orphans' court held to have jurisdiction under this section and a
demand for issues did not divest it of such jurisdiction. When issues are demanded,
orphans' court has a judicial function to perform- See notes to sec. 264. McAvoy v.
Renehan, 116 Md. 335.

The appeal provided for by this section applies to every proceeding instituted
tinder either of two preceding sections, and is exclusive of all other appeals. Hig-
nutt v. Cranor, 62 Md. 219; Linthicum v. Polk, 93 Md. 91; Stonesifer v. Shriver,
100 Md. 27; Abbott v. Golibart, 39 Md. 555; Worthington v. Herron, 39 Md. 146
(distinguishing Cannon v. Crook, 32 Md. 482); Bowers v. Cook, 132 Md. 441.

While from action of orphans' court on a petition filed under see. 253, an appeal
lies to circuit court or superior court, etc., and not to court of appeals, if petition
also alleges matters of which orphans' court has no jurisdiction under secs. 252 or 253,
an appeal lies to court of appeals. Stonesifer v. Shriver, 100 Md. 27; Linthicum v.
Polk, 93 Md. 91; Gibson v. Cook, 62 Md. 256. And see Cannon v. Crook, 32 Md.
432; Worthington v. Herron, 39 Md. 148.

Cf. secs. 265 and 323; and art. 5, secs. 5 and 64, et seq. See notes to secs. 243, 244
and 255.

An. Code, sec. 246. 1904, sec. 245. 1888, sec. 241. 1816, ch. 203, sec. 4.

255. Whenever any joint administrator or executor shall apprehend
that he is likely to suffer by the negligence or misconduct in the admin-
istration, improper use, or misapplication of the assets of the estate by
any executor or administrator, he shall make complaint to the orphans'

 

clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
The Annotated Code of the Public General Laws of Maryland, 1924
Volume 375, Page 2959   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.


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.

©Copyright  October 06, 2023
Maryland State Archives