TESTAMENTARY LAW 3369

Delay of administrator d. b. n. in rendering account where both sides are at fault
not ground for removal under circumstances. Fulford v. Fulford, 153 Md. 91.

The provisions of secs. 1-3, 106, 112, 116, 127 and 212-220 with respect to time of
accounting are directory, as time of settlement is subordinate to exigencies of reasonable
and prudent administration. Goldsborough v. DeWitt, 171 Md. 253.

Where there was no evidence that executor intended to wrong anyone, or that
anyone was prejudiced by his failure to render account in time, and his testimony
shows a willingness to apply funds in his hands properly and to render an account, he
will not be removed. An executor may only be removed for legal and specific causes
and after citation and an opportunity to be heard. Belt v. Hilgeman, Brundige Co.,
138 Md. 135. And see Stake v. Stake, 138 Md. 54.

An appeal lies from refusal of orphans' court to remove executor for failing to
account for certain money to which his testatrix was entitled in distribution of estate
of her mother, and for omitting certain property from inventory. See notes to sec. 258.
(Court declines to follow expression in Hebb v. Hebb, 5 Gill, 509.) Stake v. Stake,
138 Md. 54.

The act of executor in transferring stock of decedent to himself and selling same
without order of court justifies his removal. When an executor may be removed.
Levering v. Levering, 64 Md. 411.

An attorney for claimants is entitled to ask for a revocation of letters under this
section. If an administrator has stated a final account, it is his duty to distribute.
Biddison v. Mosely, 57 Md. 93.

Where orphans' court has authority under this section to remove administrator,
presumption is that court properly exercised its power. The pendency of an appeal
and of proceedings in equity, held to be no excuse for failure to account. Jones v.
Jones, 41 Md. 359. -

This section referred to as indicating that final account so far as debts are concerned
must be stated before orphans' court can order legacies paid or distribution made.
Lowe v. Lowe, 6 Md. 355. Cf. Clarke v. Sandrock, 113 Md. 426.

Cited but not construed in Hignutt v. Cranor, 62 Md. 220; Newton v. Johnson,
173 Md. 171; Harlan v. Hunter, 170 Md. 517.

See notes to secs. 38 and 265.

An. Code, 1924, sec. 4. 1912, sec. 4. 1904, sec. 4. 1888, sec. 4. 1798, ch. 101, sub-ch. 10,

sec. 1. 1818, ch. 217, sec. 1.

4. In such account shall be stated on one side the assets which have
come to his hands according to the inventory or inventories returned to
the court or received and appraised as herein directed after the inventory
or inventories returned, and including therein the interest that may have
been received on sales made under the authority of the court, and the sales
made under the court's direction; that is to say, the inventory or inventories
are to show the articles of the estate, and the sales, the amount of their
value, where they have been sold; and for articles so sold he shall be charged
the price according to the return; and if any articles have been sold for
credit and not yet paid for, they shall be accounted for in a subsequent
account; and all moneys received for debts due the decedent shall be in-
cluded in said account.

This section construed in connection with sec. 5. See notes thereto. York v. Md.
Trust Co., 150 Md. 358.

An account stated in accordance with this section is not intended to express or
imply an opinion of court in relation to ownership of property. At all events, account
is only prima facie—see notes to sec. 1. Haslett v. Glenn, 7 H. & J. 23.

This section referred to as indicating that debts due the decedent form no part of
the inventory. Handy v. Collins, 60 Md. 240.

Cited but not construed in Fowler v. Brady, 110 Md. 207.

See notes to secs. 13, 245 and 330.

An. Code, 1924, sec. 5. 1912, sec. 5. 1904, sec. 5. 1888, sec. 5. 1798, ch. 101, sub-ch. 10,

sec. 2. 1841, ch. 178, sec. 3. 1874, ch. 155. 1884, ch. 470. 1906, ch. 410.

1922, ch. 329. 1933, ch. 342. 1935, ch. 483. 1939, ch. 511.

5. On the other side shall be stated the disbursements by him made,
and which are to be made in the following order and priority: First,
funeral expenses, to be allowed at the discretion of the court according
to the condition and circumstances of the deceased, not to exceed three