Pike v. Satterthwaite
| Decision Date | 09 October 1940 |
| Citation | 40 Del. 595,15 A.2d 430 |
| Court | Delaware Superior Court |
| Parties | ELIZABETH B. PIKE v. WILLIAM S. SATTERTHWAITE, Administrator of Alfred T. Pike, deceased |
Superior Court for New Castle County, September Term, 1940.
Case stated.
The following facts were stated as the basis for decision in the nature of a special verdict, either party to have the right to sue out a writ of error.
The plaintiff, a resident of New Castle County, is the widow of the intestate. She had lived separate and apart from her husband for many years, receiving support from him under court order.
The defendant is the administrator of the estate and has in hand the sum of $ 1323.63 due the estate. Claims against the estate, none of them secured claims, including administration and funeral expenses, aggregate $ 1023.25.
The plaintiff made demand for the payment to her of the sum of $ 500.00 pursuant to Section 3876 of the Revised Code of 1935 which is as follows:
The demand was refused on the grounds that the plaintiff was not living with her husband at the time of his death, and that the sum of money in the hands of the administrator was not sufficient to pay all of the claims against the estate and the expense of administration.
Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $ 500.00.
Southerland Berl, Potter and Leahy for plaintiff.
Satterthwaite and Foulk for defendant.
OPINION
It is well settled that where the language of a statute is plain, unambiguous and within the legislative power, there is no room for construction. In such case, Courts are obliged to give to the statute the exact meaning conveyed by its language, adding nothing and omitting nothing. Brown Bros. & Co. v. Wilmington & Brandywine Leather Co., 9 Del. Ch. 39, 74 A. 1105; State v. Foote, 5 W. W. Harr. (35 Del.) 514, 168 A. 245; Van Winkle v. State, 27 Del. 578, 4 Boyce 578, 91 A. 385, Ann. Cas. 1916D, 104. It follows that the Court may not create an exception to the positive terms of a statute where, from its language, none exists. Lewis v. Pawnee Bill's Wild West Co., 22 Del. 316, 6 Penne. 316, 66 A. 471, 16 Ann. Cas. 903; Federal United Corp. v. Havender, 23 Del. Ch. --, 11 A.2d 331.
The plaintiff is the widow of the intestate. The language of the Act is positive and unequivocal. In the absence of secured claims, and there are none, a widow is entitled to receive, and the representative of the estate is required to pay to her, out of the estate cash up to $ 500.00.
It may be supposed that the Legislature, viewing broadly the social aspect of the situation, has determined that the welfare of the State will be promoted by endeavoring to secure to widows a cash allowance out of the estate in addition to other rights accruing to them either under wills or statutes to aid them in their distress and to enable them to adjust themselves to new responsibilities. The statute does not, as do many statutes enacted in the aid of widows, make the allowance subject to the discretion of a court of probate. The right created is an absolute right. It vests in the widow on the death of her husband and becomes an asset of her estate if she should die before payment. In re Hearn's Estate, 21 Del. Ch. --, 195 A. 367, 369.
The fact that the plaintiff was living apart from her husband at the time of his death is no bar to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Hanson's Estate
...statutes control. After careful research, it seems that the case most directly in point is the Delaware case of Pike v. Satterthwaite (1940) 1 Terry 595, 40 Del. 595, 15 A.2d 430, which involved a statute very similar to the District of Columbia statute. In that decision, the Court said tha......
- McCoy v. Hickman