Waxter v. Mindel, 198
Decision Date | 13 June 1952 |
Docket Number | No. 198,198 |
Citation | 89 A.2d 599,200 Md. 367 |
Parties | WAXTER v. MINDEL. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Alexander Stark, Asst. City Sol., Baltimore (Thomas N. Biddison, City Sol. and Lloyd G. McAllister, Asst. City Sol., Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.
Jacob D. Hornstein, Baltimore (Harry D. Kaufman, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.
Before MARBURY, C. J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, HENDERSON and MARKELL, JJ.
This is an appeal from an order sustaining exceptions to the sale of real estate under a creditor's bill.
One Clara LeBon, residing at and being the owner of property at 3711 Clipper Road in Baltimore City, was the recipient of Old Age Assistance from the Department of Public Welfare for the period from January, 1936, to October, 1947. From the last mentioned date until her death on June 10, 1949, she was maintained at Spring Grove State Hospital as a charge upon the Department of Public Welfare of Baltimore City. At the time of her death the Department of Public Welfare of Baltimore City claimed that there was due it by Clara LeBon during her lifetime the sum of $4,149.36, which was the amount of money they claimed was advanced in her behalf, less certain recoveries from her life insurance policies. At the time of her death, Miss LeBon was the owner in fee simple of the property at 3711 Clipper Road.
On September 29, 1950, the appellant filed in the Circuit Court No. 2 of Baltimore City a creditor's bill in which he recited that there was owing to him as above set forth the sum of $4,149.36. That the said Clara LeBon died on June 10, 1949, leaving no personal estate. Her heirs at law were named with their addresses. He further alleged that the said Clara LeBon at the time of her death was the owner in fee simple of the property at 3711 Clipper Road, Baltimore, and that she did not leave any personal property to pay debts contracted during her lifetime. This property had been deeded to Clara LeBon and Laura LeBon as joint tenants and Laura LeBon predeceased Clara. He asked that the aforementioned property be sold for the payment of the aforementioned debt and for any other indebtedness owed by her, for the appointment of a trustee to make said sale, and for other and general relief.
After all the defendants were returned summoned, and not having answered, a decree pro confesso was obtained on March 2nd, 1951, referring the case to an examiner to take testimony. After the taking of testimony before the examiner a decree was signed by the chancellor ordering, among other things, the sale of the real estate of the decedent for the payment of her debts, the insufficiency of her personal estate having been proven. The decree assumed further jurisdiction over the further administration of the estate and provided for the filing of the bond by the trustee therein appointed. The chancellor also ordered the trustee to 'give notice to all persons having claims against the Estate of Clara LeBon, deceased, to file their claims, properly authenticated, with the Clerk of the Circuit Court No. 2 of Baltimore City, on or before the 20th day of September, 1951, by causing a copy of this order to be publlished in some daily newspaper in the City of Baltimore, once a week for three successive weeks, before the 13th day of August, 1951.' A certificate was filed showing the publication of this notice as ordered.
A report was filed by the trustee on August 29, 1951, reporting the sale of the property mentioned in the proceedings to Meyer Mindel, appellee here, for the sum of $4,025. Before the sale was ratified the purchaser, Mr. Mindel, filed exceptions to the sale on the grounds that the court was without jurisdiction to pass the decree directing the sale; that all of the parties in interest have not been named in the proceeding; that the testimony taken is hearsay and cannot be used as a basis for legal determination and decree; and for other reasons to be shown at the hearing. No testimony was taken at the hearing on the exceptions. The chancellor sustained the exceptions on the ground that 'no notice to creditors of Clara LeBon, deceased, has been given as provided by Section 117 of Article 93 of the Code'. From the order sustaining the exceptions to the sale and ordering the trustee to reimburse the appellee the deposit paid, the appellant appeals.
Code, Article 93, Section 117, provides as follows:
This section of the article was first enacted as Chapter 146 of the Acts of 1912. By Chapter 591 of the Acts of 1924 the provisions relating to partition suits were added. By Chapter 288 of the Acts of 1939, it was made inapplicable when the deceased has been dead for 12 years or more. Article 93, Section 116, provides for the six months notice to be given in the Orphans' Court to creditors of a decedent.
The learned chancellor relied on the cases of Van Bibber v. Reese, 71 Md. 608, 18 A. 892, 6 L.R.A. 332, and Seaman v. Seaman, 141 Md. 1, 118 A. 120. In the case of Seaman v. Seaman, supra, it was said 141 Md. at pages 5 and 6, 118 A. at page 121:
Code, Article 16, Section 242, under which the creditor's bill in this case was brought, provides as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Donnally v. Montgomery County Welfare Bd., 12
...States. Cf. United States v. Gibson, D.C., 101 F.Supp. 225. We think that decision is inapplicable in the instant case. See Waxter v. Mindel, Md., 89 A.2d 599, 605. The argument applies with even greater force to the contention that the State of Maryland is entitled to payment through the e......
-
Penn Fruit Co. v. Clark
...but also her complaints regarding the injuries suffered as a result of the fall, came in without objection. In Waxter v. Mindel, 200 Md. 367, 379, 89 A.2d 599, 605 (1952), it was 'The appellee claims that this testimony was merely hearsay and therefore not admissible. However, no objection ......
-
Goldberg v. Howard County Welfare Bd., 196
...of the appellants' defense is that the money advanced by the Agency represents a debt due and owed by the recipient, Waxter v. Mindel, 200 Md. 367, 378, 89 A.2d 599 (1952), and that the defense of limitations may be set up as a bar to the Agency's action for recoupment with the same validit......
-
Worcester County Welfare Bd. v. Wyatt
...there pointed out, however, that the definition of recipient was in the past tense, not the present. It is true that in Waxter v. Mindel, 200 Md. 367, 379, 89 A.2d 599, where recovery against real estate was allowed upon a creditor's bill filed by the Welfare Board, the claim was based in l......