Hopper v. Hopkins
| Decision Date | 28 April 1932 |
| Docket Number | 60. |
| Citation | 160 A. 166,162 Md. 448 |
| Parties | HOPPER v. HOPKINS ET AL. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Orphans' Court, Harford County; John W. Spencer Harry C. Scarff, and Bradley W. Kindley, Judges.
Petition by George L. Hopper, one of the administrators of the estate of Peter Lesley Hopper, deceased, against J. T. C. Hopkins Jr., and another. From an order sustaining defendant's demurrer to the petition, petitioner appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before BOND, C.J., and PATTISON, URNER, ADKINS, OFFUTT DIGGES, PARKE, and SLOAN, JJ.
A Freeborn Brown, of Havre de Grace, for appellant.
J. Glasgow Archer, Jr., of Bel Air (Tydings, Levy & Archer, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellees.
George L. Hopper, the appellant, and one of the administrators of Peter Lesley Hopper, on October 13, 1931, filed his petition against the appellees, J. Thomas C. Hopkins, Jr., and the Cecil National Bank, charging them with concealing certain assets of the estate of Peter Lesley Hopper, deceased. Accompanying the allegation of concealment of those assets is the statement or allegation, as shown by the third administration account passed by the court, that certain stocks, bonds, and securities, specifically named therein, belonging to the estate of Peter Lesley Hopper, deceased, were in the possession of the appellees.
These stocks, bonds, and securities, etc., as alleged in the petition, "had been placed in the possession of the appellees as collateral to certain loans." The petition then alleged that the petitioner had "requested and made demand" upon the appellees "for an accounting of said assets of said estate," but they had "wrongfully refused to render an accounting of the assets," and "are concealing and retaining the said property and assets * * * thereby depriving the said estate of assets properly belonging to it." The allegation that the appellees are concealing and retaining the property and assets of the estate was made without any allegation that the loans, which it was alleged they were given to secure, were ever paid, thereby entitling the petitioner to the return of those assets.
Upon the filing of the petition an order was passed on October 27, 1931, citing the appellees to appear in court on or before the day named therein in answer to the petition, making a full disclosure of all stocks, bonds, securities, etc., in their possession belonging to the estate of Peter Lesley Hopper, deceased, and to show cause on or before the day named therein why they should not deliver to the appellant all of said stocks, bonds, and securities.
A demurrer and answer to the petition were filed by the appellees on December 8, 1931, the ground of the demurrer being that the court was without jurisdiction to grant the relief prayed.
Among the reasons given therefor was that it is shown by the allegations of the petition that there was no concealment of the assets of the estate within the meaning of section 252 of article 93 of the Code of Public General Laws, giving to the orphans' court jurisdiction to grant the relief therein provided.
The answer in effect admitted that certain stocks, bonds, and securities had been placed with them as collateral to secure loans made to Peter Lesley Hopper, deceased, and averred that some of those bonds had been returned, others had been disposed of in connection with the payment in part of said loans, and some of them were now held as collateral for the amount still owing upon the loan. The answer set forth these facts with greater particularity than we have stated them, but we do not feel it necessary to go further than to state them as we have, as it would only prolong the opinion without serving any useful purpose.
Before any action was taken upon the demurrer, the appellant filed his second petition, in which he alleged the passage of the order upon the petition of October 18, 1931, requiring the appellees to account for certain assets of the estate which the appellees were charged with concealing. It is further alleged that on the 8th day of December, 1931, the appellees filed their joint demurrer to the petition and "also their answer with an account that in no sense meets the requirement or spirit of said order of court, nor does it give the administrators the information as to the assets belonging to said estate as set forth in said petition and affidavit, and required under said order of Court." A motion was then made therein by which the court was asked "to overrule said demurrer * * * and to pass an additional order requiring said Cecil National Bank and J Thomas C. Hopkins, Jr., * * * to show cause if any they have on or before December 22nd, 1931, why they should not be required to account for and turn over to the administrators...
To continue reading
Request your trial