Grimes v. Talbert

• Decision Date: 15 July 1859
• Citation: Grimes v. Talbert, 14 Md. 169 (Md. 1859)
• Parties: JEREMIAH A. GRIMES, and Wife v. JOHN P. TALBERT and Others.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

14 Md. 169

JEREMIAH A. GRIMES, and Wife v. JOHN P. TALBERT and Others.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

July 15, 1859

Appeal from the Orphans' Court for Prince George's County.

This appeal is from an order dismissing the petition of the appellants, asking for the grant of letters of administration, upon the personal estate of James D. Barrett deceased. The appellants allege, that the deceased left, at the time of his death, two negro slaves, Charlotte and Nelly, who have since had children, and they aver, that these are a part of his estate. This is denied by the appellees, who aver, that he left no personal estate of any kind, and testimony was taken on this point, on both sides.

On the part of the appellants evidence was offered, tending to show that Charlotte and Nelly were in possession of Jas. D. Barrett, at the time of his death, and had been given to his wife, one of them prior to her marriage and the other subsequently, by her uncle and aunt.

On the part of the appellees it was proved by a witness, that he was acquainted with all the property Barrett claimed to own at the time of his death, and held a bill of sale of all the property Barrett then claimed, and that Barrett had no property at the time of his death; that witness knows, that he did not own any negroes at the time of his death; that he knows nothing of negroes Charlotte and Nelly, but if they had belonged to Barrett he would have known it, as he was intimate with him for fourteen years prior to his death.

The allegations of the petition and answers, which were under oath, and the other facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion of this court. The court below being divided in opinion, in relation to the grant of letters of administration, passed an order dismissing the petition of the appellants, from which they appealed.

The cause was argued before LE GRAND, C. J., ECCLESTON and BARTOL, JJ. Daniel C. Digges for the appellants, argued for a reversal of the order:

1st. Because the proof showed a fit case, under the law, for an administration on the personal estate of Barrett; the personal property of the feme sole, after marriage exclusively vesting in her husband, at common law, and he dying in possession thereof. Peacock v. Pembroke, 4 Md. 280. Ware v. Richardson, 3 Md. 550. Turton v. Turton, 6 Md. 375. Unger v. Price, 9 Md. 557.

2nd. Because the negroes in question, belonging to the husband at the time of his death, administration was absolutely necessary, in order to devolve title to his distributees. Wilson v. Smith, 10 Md. 67. Hagthorp v. Neale, 7 G. & J. 13. Owings v. Bates, 9 Gill 463. Act of 1798, ch. 101, sub-ch. 5, secs. 2, 3, and sub-ch. 15, sec. 13. Alexander v. Stewart, 8 G. & J. 226. Woodin v. Bagley, 13 Wend. 453.

3rd. Because, in this cause, as appears from the record, the proof is conclusive, that letters of administration never had been granted. It is not a case of presumption of a grant of letters, when the proof is full they never were granted.

S. B. Hance and Thos. F. Bowie, for the appellees, argued for the affirmance of the order:

1st. Because the petition does not sufficiently aver, that these negroes were the property of Barrett at the time of his death. In the absence of such an allegation in the petition, a disclosure of facts and circumstances in the answers, showing a right of property in other persons, justified the dismissal of the petition. The proceeding was a plenary one, upon bill and answers, and the latter being on oath, must be contradicted by two witnesses, or one with pregnant circumstances.

2nd. Because the proof shows, that the right of property in the negroes was in the widow of James D. Barrett, acquired by gift from her aunt and uncle, and that she has held uninterrupted possession of them for twenty-six years.

3rd. Because after such a lapse of time with the assent of creditors, if any, as well as of distributees, a title in the widow will be presumed, and the court properly refused the application of the petitioners. 1 Greenl. Ev. sec. 21. Best on Presumptions, 145. Casey v. Inloes, 1 Gill 430. Anderson v. Garrett, 9 Gill 133. Johnson v. Farmers' Bank, 11 Md. 412. Jones v. Turberville, 2 Ves. 11.

OPINION

Bartol, J.

This is an appeal from an order of the Orphans' Court for Prince George's County, refusing to grant letters of administration on the personal estate of James D. Barrett, deceased.

It appears from the record, that the deceased died on the 10th of May, 1830, leaving a widow, Lucy Barrett, who has since intermarried with John P. Talbert, and several children among whom is Elizabeth, wife of Grimes, the appellant. No administration has ever been granted on his estate. On the 11th of May, 1858, a petition was filed in the Orphans' Court, by the appellants, alleging, that said James D. Barrett left, at the time of his death, two negro women, named Charlotte a...