Schaffer v. Richardson's Estate

• Decision Date: 14 January 1915
• Docket Number: 91.
• Citation: 93 A. 391,125 Md. 88
• Parties: SCHAFFER v. RICHARDSON'S ESTATE.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

93 A. 391

125 Md. 88

SCHAFFER v. RICHARDSON'S ESTATE.

No. 91.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

January 14, 1915

Appeal from Orphans' Court of Baltimore City.

Proceedings between Mary E. Schaffer and the estate of Margery J Richardson. From an order of distribution, Mary E. Schaffer appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before BOYD, C.J., and BRISCOE, BURKE, THOMAS, URNER STOCKBRIDGE, and CONSTABLE, JJ.

Alfred J. O'Ferrall and James M. Mullen, both of Baltimore, for appellant. G. Ridgely Sappington and Charles G. Baldwin, both of Baltimore, for appellees.

BURKE J.

Letters of administration were granted by the orphans' court of Baltimore city to Thomas C. McGuire on the estate of Margery J. Richardson, who died intestate on April 13, 1913. He reduced the assets of the estate to cash, and upon his petition the court fixed November 27, 1913, as the day for the meeting of distributees with a view of making distribution of the residue of the estate in the hands of the administrator to those entitled to receive the same.

A contest arose over one-quarter of the estate. Upon the evidence embraced in the record, and after full hearing, the court ordered that the one-quarter of the estate in controversy be distributed among the appellant and the appellees in equal portions. From this order the appellant has prosecuted this appeal.

The only next of kin of Margery J. Richardson were the children and descendants of two brothers and two sisters who predeceased her. One of her brothers was James Washington McGuire, who died in Honolulu, Hawaii, in July, 1912, and the dispute in this case concerns the one-fourth part of the estate, amounting to $2,775, to which he would have been entitled, if living.

In 1848 he married Mary Eliza Smith, and lived with her in Baltimore. They had one child, Mary E. Schaffer, the appellant on this record. The record tells us very little about him or his wife during his residence in Baltimore. He was a ship carpenter and was accustomed to be absent from his home for long periods of time. He left Baltimore in 1849 and went to California, and never returned, except on one occasion, when he looked for his wife and child, but failed to find them. His wife went to Virginia to live prior to the Civil War, and in 1866 procured a divorce from him in that state on the ground of abandonment. She has not been seen or heard from for many years, and is presumed to be dead. The daughter saw her father last about the year 1854, when she was 5 years old. When 7 years old she was taken to the home of Mrs Richardson, her aunt, with whom she lived for about 8 years. During which time her father sent $50 every six months for her support. Very little is known of the father after he left Baltimore until the year 1855, at which time he was residing in Honolulu. On the 14th of September, 1855, he was baptized and married in Honolulu, Hawaii, by the Reverend Father Herman, a priest of the Roman Catholic Church, to Maria Vanbergen, and lived with her in Honolulu as man and wife until his death in 1912. That this marriage was celebrated according to the rites and ceremonies of the Roman Catholic Church is clearly established by the evidence. We quote from the depositions of Mrs. Maria McGuire, Frank Andrade, and Charles B. Wilson:

Mrs. McGuire:

"I was married to James Washington McGuire September 14, 1855, by and in the presence of the Reverend Father Herman in Honolulu, territory of Hawaii, my father being also present, and he is now dead."

Frank Andrade:

"While I did not see them actually married, from my early boyhood about 1855, these two people, Mr. and Mrs. McGuire, were always known as a married couple, associating with some of the best families in Honolulu, passing each other off to their friends and associates as husband and wife, and at the same time rearing and educating a large family of children." Charles B. Wilson:

"I did not see the marriage ceremony performed, but I do know that Mr. and Mrs. McGuire were living together as married people generally do. When I met them in 1867 they had some children, and later on had other children, and I do know that it was generally known and understood that Mr. and Mrs. McGuire were married people, and in all the years that I have known them this fact has never been questioned."

The nine appellees on this record, whose ages range from 58 to 30 years, three of whom reside in California, are children by this marriage. They claim to be legitimate children of James Washington McGuire, and, as such, entitled to share in the distribution of the portion of Mrs. Richardson's estate which he, if living, would have taken. Mary E. Schaffer, the appellant, and the only issue of the first marriage, claims to be the only legitimate child of James Washington McGuire, and that she is entitled to have the whole share paid over to her.

The question arising from these conflicting contentions is the validity of the second marriage, which occurred on September 14, 1855.

Omitting the consideration of the evidence offered to support the claim set up by the appellees that James Washington McGuire secured a divorce from his wife in San Francisco prior to the second marriage, and considering the case upon the facts stated, the question is: Are they sufficient in law to show the validity of the second marriage? This precise question has not been decided by this court, and it cannot be denied that there is some conflict upon it in the decided cases.

It would be an interminable, as well as a hopeless task, to discuss all the cases upon the subject, or to attempt to reconcile or distinguish them. But there is sound reason and abundant authority for holding that, under the circumstances stated, the contention of the appellant ought not to be sustained. Of course, if the first marriage was subsisting at the time James W. McGuire contracted the second, there can be no question that the last marriage was void; but there appears to be no imperative rule of law which requires us to hold, under the facts disclosed by this record, that the prior marriage was subsisting. When it is shown that there has been a formal ceremony of marriage, such as that proved with respect to the marriage of September 14, 1855, the law presumes the competency of the parties to enter into the marriage contract, and, when it is shown that the marriage was solemnized by a person acting as minister and followed by cohabitation, it will be presumed that the person assuming to officiate at the ceremony was authorized to perform it, that a license was properly issued, and that, in the absence of additional or countervailing proof, it will be presumed that all the proceedings were regular and valid. 19 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 1203, 1204, and cases cited in the notes.

There appears to be a general concurrence of authority in favor of the proposition that, when a marriage has been solemnized according to the forms of law, every presumption will be indulged in favor of its validity, or, as stated in Bowman v. Little, 101 Md. 273, 61 A. 223, 657, 1084, that "the law favors morality, and not immorality; marriage, and not concubinage; legitimacy, and not bastardy."

The tendency of the courts is to hold the second marriage valid especially if there is issue which may be bastardized by a contrary holding, and if the marriage has not been questioned for many years its validity will not be overcome by the mere proof of a prior marriage. In such case the presumption in favor of innocence, morality, and...