1222 ARTICLE 93.

An. Code. 1924, sec. 127. 1912, sec. 122. 1904, sec. 121. 1888, sec. 122.
1798, ch. 101, sub-ch. 11, sec. 3. 1898, ch. 331. 1933, ch. 386.

127. If there be a surviving husband or a widow, as the case may be,

and no child or descendant of the intestate, but the said intestate shall

leave a father or mother, the surviving husband or widow, as the case may

be, shall have one-half. If there be a surviving husband or widow, as the

case may be, and no child or descendant of the intestate, and no parent,

but the aaid intestate shall leave a brother or sister, or child of descendant

of a brother or sister, the surviving husband or widow, as the case may be,

shall take Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00) or its equivalent in property,

or any interest therein, at its appraised value, and one-half of the residue.

Neither a murderer nor his heirs or representatives through him can inherit

or take any portion of the estate of the one murdered. Price v. Hitaffer, 164

Md. 505.

To last note to this section, page 2914, vol. 2 of Code, add Levin v. Safe Dep.
& Tr. Co., 167 Md. 43.

132.

This section applied in Woodworth v. Tepper, 152 Md. 333 (involving unpaid
instalments of war veterans" insurance).

134.

To first note to this section, page 2916, vol. 2, of Code, add "(decided prior to
act 1916. ch. 224)"

135.

Collateral relations are to be ascertained by civil law method of beginning
count with decedent and counting up to common ancestors and down to claim-
ants. Meaning of "in equal degree". History of law on this subject. Thomas
v. Marriott, 154 Md. 108.

To first note to this section, page 2916, vol. 2, of Code, add "(decided prior to
act 1912, ch. 91, and 1916, ch. 224).

Cited but not construed in Brannan v. Ely, 157 Md. 103.

140.

To second note to this section, page 2917, vol. 2, of Code, add: And see Thomas
v. Marriott, 154 Md. 114.
See notes to sec. 135.

141.

To note to this section, page 2918, vol. 2. of Code, add: And see Thomas v.
Marriott, 154 Md. 114.

144.

Cited but not construed in Mullen v. Moore, 156 Md. 422; Young v Murray,
159 Md. 558; Murray v. Hurst, 163 Md. 489.

148.

This section referred to in deciding that under a District of Columbia statute
the settlement of an administrator's account, which stated the manner of dis-
tribution of the residue of the estate, was not res judicata of distributee's
rights. Claudy v. Duvall. 5 F. (2nd), (Ct. Apps., D. C.), 384.

At hearing under this section, where court decided in favor of one group of
claimants on the ground of greater intrinsic weight of testimony, held that