Richardson v. Smith

• Court: Maryland Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: BRYAN, J.
• Citation: Richardson v. Smith, 80 Md. 89, 30 A. 568 (Md. 1894)
• Decision Date: 22 November 1894
• Parties: RICHARDSON v. SMITH.

30 A. 568

80 Md. 89

RICHARDSON

v. SMITH.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Nov. 22, 1894.

Appeal from orphans' court, Baltimore county.

Action by Isabella Richardson against Eliza A. Smith, administratrix of William Richardson, to revoke letters of administration granted to defendant. From an order refusing an issue prayed by plaintiff, and granting three prayed by defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Argued before ROBINSON, C. J., and BRYAN, BRISCOE, McSHERRY, FOWLER, ROBERTS, PAGE, and BOYD, JJ.

Chas. E. Hill and F. P. Ross, for appellant.

W. Hall Harris, Wm. Colton, and Geo. R. Willis, for appellee.

BRYAN, J. Isabella Richardson, by her petition in the orphans' court of Baltimore county, alleged that she is the widow of William Richardson, who died Intestate, and that, without notice to her, letters of administration on his estate have been granted to his sister, Eliza A. Smith. The petitioner prays that the letters may be revoked, and that she may have general relief. Eliza A. Smith answered the petition, and denied that the petitioner was the widow, and that she was ever the wife, of the deceased. The petitioner prayed an issue in the following terms: "Whether the petitioner, Isabella Richardson, is the widow of William Richardson, deceased." The orphans' court refused to grant the issue proposed in behalf of the petitioner, and ordered the three following: "First Issue. Was William Richardson, late of Baltimore county, deceased, married to Isabella Parsons? And, if yea, when, where, and how was said marriage celebrated? Second Issue. Was William Richardson the husband of said Isabella Parsons at the time of his death, to wit, December 10, 1893? Third Issue. Was Isabella Parsons the wife of William Richardson at the time of his death, to wit, December 10, 1893?"

The issue prayed on the part of the petitioner was a clear statement of the question in controversy. There is no reason why it should not have been granted. The issues which were granted present an inquiry about the marriage of Isabella Parsons, when no person bearing that name is mentioned in the pleadings. It may be surmised that the petitioner is the person who is meant, but nevertheless the issues ought to be framed concerning the persons named and the matters set forth in the petition and answer. Supposing that these issues relate to Isabella Richardson, the second and third are in effect the same, and are merely repetitions of the issue proposed by the petitioner; and the third presents the question of marriage between the parties, and also the additional Inquiry when, where, and how it was celebrated. In this state there cannot be a valid marriage without a religious ceremony, but a marriage may be competently proved without the testimony of witnesses who were present at the ceremony. It would work very cruel injustice in many Instances if the law were otherwise. The witnesses might be dead, and competent written evidence of the ceremony might be unattainable. It would not follow, however, that the union between the parties would be...