Gunther v. State, to Use of Bouldin

• Decision Date: 16 June 1869
• Citation: Gunther v. State, to Use of Bouldin, 31 Md. 21 (Md. 1869)
• Parties: CONRAD GUNTHER and Ira C. Canfield v. THE STATE, Use of Randolph J. Bouldin, Guardian, etc.
• Court: Maryland Supreme Court

31 Md. 21

CONRAD GUNTHER and Ira C. Canfield v. THE STATE, Use of Randolph J. Bouldin, Guardian, etc.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

June 16, 1869

Appeal from the Orphans' Court of Baltimore City.

John Watchman's will, dated July 5th, 1856, and admitted to probate October 12th, 1865, appointed his wife executrix; she renounced, and letters of administration c. t. a. were granted to James K. Wilkes.

The will contained the following clause:

"I give and bequeath to my adopted son, Robert Siggs sometimes called John Watchman, $2,000, should he attain the age of twenty-one years." The next clause contained a similar legacy to another. Both of these legacies were made charges on his estate; and should the legatees die before attaining the age of twenty-one years the legacies were to lapse on their death respectively. The residue was devised and bequeathed to his wife for life with power to dispose of the same at her pleasure, and if not so disposed of, over to the first named legatees, if they or either of them should survive the wife. On the 4th of February, 1867, the Orphans' Court of Baltimore City, appointed George H. Steibel, guardian to Robert Siggs, sometimes called John Watchman, and on the same day Steibel gave bond, with the appellants Gunther and Canfield, as his sureties.

On the same day, the Orphans' Court passed an order, on the application of James K. Wilkes, administrator, with the will annexed, of John Watchman, deceased, "that the said administrator, c. t. a. be and he is hereby authorized and empowered to transfer to George H. Steibel, guardian of Robert Siggs, sometimes called John Watchman, the legacy of $2,000, bequeathed to the said ward, in the will of said deceased." On the 16th of March, 1867, the administrator passed his first and final account. On the 7th of July, 1868, after citation at the instance of the sureties, which was not responded to by Steibel, the Orphans' Court passed an order revoking Steibel's guardianship, and appointing Randolph J. Bouldin guardian in his stead.

On the 20th of November, 1868, Bouldin as guardian, filed a petition against Steibel, for an account and order to deliver over "all the property of the said Robert Siggs, etc remaining in his hands, etc." Steibel answered this petition, showing his receipt from Wilkes the administrator, of $2,000 and stating that he had used the balance of said sum in his hands, after deducting certain allowances claimed by him, in his business, and being unfortunate, he was, on April 14th, 1868, compelled to apply for the benefit of the bankrupt law, and all the property of Steibel, including the goods bought with the said money of Siggs, passed into the hands of Ira C. Canfield, as assignee of Steibel; that Canfield is one of the sureties on Steibel's bond, as guardian; and that Steibel is now entirely without means and utterly unable to bring into the Orphans' Court or pay over to Bouldin, as the present guardian of Siggs, any part or portion of the money received by Steibel, as such guardian. On the same day Steibel exhibited his first account, showing a balance due his ward of $1,925.62.

On the 28th of November, 1868, the sureties filed an exception to the account for the reasons: 1st. That Siggs, alias Watchman, had no property whatever in the interest or principal of the said legacy, which could legally come into the hands of Steibel as guardian. 2nd. That at the time of Steibel's appointment as guardian, Siggs had no property of any kind which could legally come into the hands of Steibel as guardian, and that consequently the appointment was void for want of jurisdiction in the Orphans' Court. 3rd. That the alleged payment by the administrator was illegally made.

On the 11th of December, 1868, the Orphans' Court overruled the exceptions, and passed an order approving Steibel's account, and requiring him as guardian, to pay over all property, etc., to Bouldin, and in default, directing Bouldin to put in suit, the bond of Steibel as guardian, etc. From these orders the sureties appealed.

The cause was argued before BARTOL, C.J., STEWART, MILLER and ALVEY, JJ.

Isaac D. Jones (Attorney-General), for the appellants:

To have given jurisdiction to the Orphans' Court to appoint a guardian to Robert Siggs, it was necessary that the court should have at least prima facie evidence that he was entitled to some property, which could be the subject of a guardianship. Code of Pub. Gen. Laws, Art. 93, secs. 144, 203. The power is analogous to that of granting administration, and administration d. b. n. Shivers v. Wilson, 5 H. & J. 130; Grimes v. Talbert, 14 Md. 169; Scott v. Fox, 14 Md. 388.

It is apparent from the order of appointment describing the ward as "an adopted son under the will of John Watchman, deceased," and also, the order on the administrator, passed on the same day, to pay over to Steibel, guardian, etc., "the legacy of $2,000, bequeathed to the said ward in the will of deceased," and also from the administrator's account, and the account of Steibel approved by the court, that there was no pretense that the ward had any property whatever, unless he was entitled to that legacy. And if the court had looked at the will, they must have seen that so far from affording prima facie evidence of title in Siggs, the will plainly conferred no interest which could be the subject of guardianship, the legacy not vesting, unless and until he should arrive at twenty-one years of age, when, of course, no guardian could be legally appointed.

Thus presenting the case of special, limited jurisdiction, showing a want of jurisdiction upon the face of their proceedings. Shivers v. Wilson, 5 H. & J. 130; Steuart v. Pattison, 8 Gill, 58; Baltimore v. Porter, 18 Md. 284; Offutt v. Offutt, 2 H. & G. 178; Hayden v. Burch, 9 Gill, 82; Townshend v. Brooke, 9 Gill, 91; Glass v. Ramsey, 9 Gill, 458; Spencer v. Ragan, 9 Gill, 482; Williams v. Holmes, 9 Md. 281; Clark v. Bryan, 16 Md. 171.

The alleged ward had no interest in the legacy, which could be the subject of guardianship during his minority, according to the terms of the will, therefore, the order of the Orphans' Court, directing the administrator to pay over the legacy to Steibel was without jurisdiction, and, therefore, null and void. McMath v. State, 6 H. & J. 98; Townshend v. Brooke, 9 Gill, 91.

Where a court, with limited jurisdiction, takes upon itself to exercise a jurisdiction which does not belong to it, its decision amounts to nothing, and does not create a necessity for an appeal. Baltimore v. Porter, 18 Md. 285; 8 How. 543.

The Orphans Court had no jurisdiction to decide on the validity of the legacy, and no jurisdiction, save what was necessarily conferred by statute. State v. Warren, 28 Md. 338.

By Art. 93, sec. 10, Code of Pub. Gen. Laws, the Orphans' Court had power "to decree or give directions in regard to the legacy, and in what manner it should be disposed of," so that it "should be secured to the person to be entitled at a future period or contingency," and be "prevented from lying dead or being unproductive," and what part of the estate should be retained or appropriated for that purpose, etc., and this could be legally done only by an order to retain in the administrator's hands, or invest the same to abide the contingencies of the will, and so that the residuary legatee should, in the meantime, have the accruing interest. It is a power to carry the will into practical effect, not a power to alter or change its plain import and meaning.

But if the appointment of Steibel was valid, the appellants being sureties in the guardian-bond of Steibel, and, therefore, bound only for his accounting for, "and management of the property and estate of the infant under his care," had a right to object to the court's approval of a proposed account in which the guardian confessed himself insolvent, and erroneously sought to charge himself, as guardian, with money he could not legally have received in that capacity, because the approval of such account created a prima facie liability of the sureties for the money in a suit upon the bond. The Orphans' Court, therefore, erred in the passage of the order approving the pretended guardian's account. A contract of surety cannot be extended by construction beyond its letter. Ellicott v. Levy Court, 1 H. & J. 360; Quynn v. State, 1 H. & J. 36; Kerr v. State, 3 H. & J. 560; Chase v. McDonald, 7 H. & J. 160; Morgan v. Blackiston, 5 H. & J. 61.

The order of the Orphans' Court of the 11th of December, 1868, requiring Steibel to pay over to Bouldin, etc., was erroneous also, because no "reasonable time was fixed by the court" within which payment over was to be made before the bond was to be put in suit. Code of Pub. Gen. Laws, Art. 93, secs. 187, 189.

The appellants, as sureties, have such an interest in the subjects of said orders as authorizes them to maintain this appeal. Stevenson v. Schriver, 9 G. & J. 335; Parker v. Gwynn, 4 Md. 423; Hoffar v. Stonestreet, 6 Md. 303; Cecil v. Harrington, 18 Md. 510; Cecil v. Cecil, 19 Md. 72.

Randolph J. Bouldin and Albert Ritchie, for the appellee:

Robert Siggs being a male under twenty-one years of age, and entitled to a legacy or bequest of $2,000 under the last will and testament of John Watchman, deceased, and not having a guardian appointed by last will and testament, agreeably to law, the Orphans' Court of Baltimore City had the power, and did appoint George H. Steibel the guardian of said Siggs; the appointment was perfectly legal and in accordance with the last clause of Art. 93, sec. 144, Code of Pub. Gen. Laws.

The Orphans' Court had "full power to take probate of the will" of John Watchman, deceased, " direct the conduct and settling of the accounts of" James K. Wilkes, ...