TESTAMENTARY LAW 3459

McEvoy, 85 Md. 290; Forney v. Shriner, 60 Md. 421; Bowie v. Ghiselin, 30 Md. 558;
Porter v. Timanus, 12 Md. 292; Falconer v. Regelier, 6 Md. 552; Ex parte Shipley, 4 Md.
496; Owen v. Pye, 115 Md. 407.

Where orphans' court has authority under this section to remove an 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 deposit funds as directed
by court. Jones v. Jones, 41 Md. 359.

Under this section and sec. 193, orphans' court may validly discharge a guardian
after she has fully accounted for estate and delivered it up as directed by court and
required by her bond. Thus the duty and responsibility of the guardian may be
terminated, and surety on her bond exonerated. Secs. 193, et seq., contemplate that
the retirement of a guardian will be followed by a new appointment; purpose of these
sections and duty of orphans' court thereunder. Griffith v. Parks, 32 Md. 1, distinguished.
Fidelity & Deposit Company v. Husted, 128 Md. 277.

An exclusive discretion is committed to orphans' court by this section. The power
to remove an executor or administrator for failure to render accounts is not conferred
by this section, but by sec. 3 of this article. See notes to secs. 3 and 255. Stake v. Stake,
138 Md. 54.

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

Purpose of this section. While guardian and his bond are not responsible for money
deposited under order of court, neither is released from their general responsibility by
such order. This section does not contemplate ward's money remaining in bank un-
productive. Griffith v. Parks, 32 Md. 7; O'Hara v. Shepherd, 3 Md. Ch. 306.

Where administrator or guardian deposits money without an order of court and
loss ensues, he is responsible therefor. Purpose of this section. Bacon v. Howard,
20 Md. 194; Carlysle v. Carlysle, 10 Md. 446.

An order that money be brought into court to be paid a creditor is not in con-
formity with this section. Bowie v. Ghiselin, 30 Md. 558.

This section referred to re jurisdiction in divorce case—see notes to art. 16, sec. 38.
Lowe v. Lowe, 150 Md. 603.

This section referred to in deciding that situs of personal property remains in county
where guardian is appointed, although both guardian and ward may be non-residents.
Baldwin v. State, 89 Md. 601; Baldwin v. Washington County, 85 Md. 159.

This section referred to in deciding that where a will leaves property to an infant
provided he lives to attain his majority, fund may be turned over to a guardian (though
the better practice is otherwise), to be paid infant in case he so survives; otherwise, to
parties entitled. Gunther v. State, 31 Md. 31.

For case denying jurisdiction of equity because complainant had ample remedy under
act of 1831, ch. 315, see Lee v. Price, 12 Md. 256.

An. Code, 1924, sec. 252. 1912, sec. 243. 1904, sec. 242. 1888, sec. 238. 1831, ch. 315, sec. 12.

252. If an administrator shall believe that any person conceals any
part of his decedent's estate he may file a petition in the orphans' court
of the county in which he obtained administration, alleging such conceal-
ment, and the court shall compel an answer thereto on oath; and if satis-
fied upon an examination of the whole case that the party charged has con-
cealed any part of the personal estate of the deceased, may order the de-
livery thereof to the administrator, and may enforce obedience to such
order by attachment, imprisonment or sequestration of property.

Jurisdiction of Orphans' Court under this section and secs. 253, 257 and 258, not
affected by fact that former administrator claims title to securities also claimed by
new administrator. When equity will assume jurisdiction; injunction preventing access
to safe deposit box. See notes to sec. 264. Anderson v. Curran, 155 Md. 544.

Petition charging concealment of assets, but alleging they were in defendant's pos-
session as collateral for loan, without alleging that loan had been paid, is not sufficient
to confer jurisdiction on Orphans' Court. Hopper v. Hopkins, 162 Md. 448.

Where title to personal property is involved, an executor may not be proceeded
against under this section. Safe Dep. & Trust Co. v. Coyle, 133 Md. 348; Lipson v.
Evans, 133 Md. 377.

Nature of the jurisdiction conferred by this section. Proof of concealment. Smith v
Stockbridge, 39 Md. 646.

Where question is not one of concealment but of title to property, orphans' court
has no jurisdiction under this section. Daugherty v. Daugherty, 82 Md. 231; Gibson
v. Cook, 62 Md. 260.

Title to decedent's property vests in administrator. An inventory may upon applica-
tion to orphans' court be corrected, but that court cannot pass on questions of title to
110