Pratt v. Hill
| Decision Date | 13 November 1914 |
| Docket Number | 13. |
| Citation | 92 A. 543,124 Md. 252 |
| Parties | PRATT v. HILL. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Orphans' Court, Baltimore County.
"To be officially reported."
Petition by Nancy Ann Hill to require Philip H. Pratt, administrator of James M. Squirrel, deceased, to furnish an additional bond. From an order requiring the administrator to file an additional inventory and an additional bond, he appeals. Affirmed in part, and reversed in part.
George W. F. McMechen, of Baltimore (W. Ashbie Hawkins, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant. Howard C. Wilcox and W. Harry Holmes, both of Baltimore, for appellee.
This is an appeal from the orphans' court of Baltimore county ordering and directing the appellant to file an additional inventory and an additional bond. The appellee filed a petition in that court, in which she alleged that the appellant had filed an inventory of the personal estate of the decedent, consisting of the chattels appraised at $49.50 and a leasehold property appraised at $700, which leasehold property had been sold for the sum of $950; that she had proved her claim for $88 for rent, etc., due her, and that there had been other claims filed amounting to $637.63 that she is credibly informed and avers that since filing the inventory there had come into the hands of the administrator a sum of money exceeding $900, being the net proceeds of a policy of insurance on the life of James M. Squirrel deceased; that the assets of said estate have increased, and are now more than double the amount of the bond filed by the administrator, and the debts due by the estate (aggregating $725.63), together with a mortgage debt amounting to about $200, are more than the penalty named in the bond. The petition prays that the administrator be required to furnish additional security in an amount which to the court may seem right and proper.
An order was passed upon the petition and affidavit by which the administrator was required to file an additional bond, in the penalty of $900, on or before the 21st day of April, 1914. Apparently it was intended as an order to show cause, as a copy of the petition and affidavit was served on the administrator, who on April 21st filed an answer to the petition. In the answer it was alleged: (1) That Sadie Squirrel, wife of the decedent, James M. Squirrel, had her husband insured in the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company of New York for $1,000, the premiums thereon were paid by her, and she was the beneficiary. (2) That she died on November 26, 1912, leaving her husband and four children, who kept up the premiums, and that upon the death of James M. Squirrel the proceeds of said policy of insurance (being $932.72, balance due) became vested absolutely in the children of Sadie Squirrel. (3) That the insurance company had arranged to pay the policy to the children of Sadie Squirrel, and would have done so, had not one of them been a minor, and in order that the company could get a valid receipt it paid over to petitioner (meaning respondent) the said sum of $932.72. (4) That said sum is no part of the estate, and belongs absolutely to the children of Sadie Squirrel and James Squirrel.
The petition and answer were sworn to by the respective parties. An order was passed which recited that:
"This cause coming on for hearing on the petition of Nancy Ann Hill and the answer thereto of Philip H. Pratt, administrator, and the same having been fully argued by counsel for the respective parties, and the court being of the opinion that the sum of $932.72 (mentioned in said petition and answer, and being the net proceeds of a policy of insurance on the life of the said James M. Squirrel, deceased) is a part of the assets of the estate of James M. Squirrel, deceased"
--and then ordered that the administrator file an additional inventory, showing said sum of money so coming into his hands, and that he file an additional bond in the penalty of $900. That is the order from which the appeal is taken.
The record presents some peculiar conditions. In the first place, neither the insurance policy nor any substitute for it is in the record, and we have no means of knowing what provisions, if any, it contains as to payment in case of the death of the beneficiary named. The answer, it is true, alleges that Sadie Squirrel, the wife of the decedent, was the beneficiary, and that the balance due under the policy of insurance became vested in the children of Sadie Squirrel; but there is nothing to show whether the policy contained any provisions as to who should have the proceeds of the policy in case of the death of the beneficiary, and, if so, what they were, or whether there were any by-laws or other provisions controlling them. The allegation as to the sum being vested in the children of Sadie Squirrel is, so far as shown by the answer, simply the conclusion or construction of the appellant.
Section 8 of article 45 of Code fully protects the amount of insurance due a wife on a policy on her husband's life for her sole use from the claims of the representatives of her husband or any of his creditors; section 9 protects policies of insurance taken out for the benefit or bona fide assigned to the wife or children or any relative dependent upon such person or any creditor from claims of the creditors of the insured person; and section 10 provides that:
"If the wife shall die before her husband the amount of such insurance may be payable after her death to the children or descendants for their use, and to their guardian, if under age, and, if there be no children or descendants of the wife living at the time of her death, to her legal representative."
But, notwithstanding that provision of the Code, the policy or by-laws may make other provisions, and in that case, of course, section 10 would not apply. It would therefore be impossible for us to determine who is or are entitled to this fund from anything in the record, and we could not attempt to do so, even if the appeal is properly before us.
To continue reading
Request your trial