Willis v. Jones

• Decision Date: 03 June 1875
• Citation: 42 Md. 422
• Parties: ARTHUR J. WILLIS, Administrator of MARY E. JONES, deceased, v. JAMES M. JONES.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

42 Md. 422

ARTHUR J. WILLIS, Administrator of MARY E. JONES, deceased, v. JAMES M. JONES.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

June 3, 1875

APPEAL from the Orphans' Court of Caroline County.

The facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the Court.

The cause was submitted to BARTOL, C.J., STEWART, BOWIE, BRENT GRASON, MILLER and ROBINSON, J.

J W. Bryant and Robert J. Jump, for the appellant.

The Orphans' Court erred in revoking the letters of administration granted to Arthur J. Willis upon the estate of Mary E. Jones, deceased:

1st. Because at the time of the death of Mrs. Mary E. Jones, her husband was a non-resident of the State of Maryland, and so remained until after the granting of administration upon her estate. Code, Art. 93, sec. 33.

2nd. Because the said James M. Jones had abandoned, and was living separate and apart from his wife at the time of her death. Code, Art. 93, sec. 31.

3rd. Because the said James M. Jones was insolvent and without administration the creditors were remediless.

4th. Because the said James M. Jones had, by a postnuptial contract, relinquished his right to the personal property of his deceased wife. Ward vs. Thompson, 6 Gill & Johnson, 349; 2 Kent's Com., 174; Hubbard and Wife vs. Barcus, et al., 38 Md., 176.

5th. That an administration upon the estate of Mary E. Jones was a right that her creditors could exercise. Weisker vs Lowenthal, 31 Md., 413.

No counsel appeared for the appellee.

MILLER J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

This appeal is from an order of the Orphans' Court revoking letters of administration on the personal estate of Mrs. Mary E. Jones, deceased. Mrs. Jones died intestate and leaving children, in April, 1874, and shortly thereafter administration upon her estate was granted to her brother the appellant. In May following, James M. Jones filed his petition praying revocation of these letters on the ground that he was the surviving husband of the deceased, and that the grant of them was contrary to law, and in contravention of his rights in her property. After answer by the administrator the proceedings were made plenary, testimony taken, and upon hearing the Court revoked the letters.

It is quite clear from the proof, that the deceased acquired and held whatever personal property she died possessed of, under the 1st section of Article 45 of the Code, and by the 2nd section of that Article her surviving husband was entitled to a life estate therein. In Hubbard & Wife vs Barcus, et al., 38 Md., 175, this Court without determining whether under any circumstances administration can be granted upon the estate of a married woman, dying intestate, whilst her husband survived her, affirmed an order refusing the grant during the life of the surviving husband, when her property was thus acquired and held. That case is decisive of this unless the husband has validly parted with his rights or been lawfully deprived of them.

But the appellant whilst admitting the marriage and that the parties lived together until shortly before the 15th of February 1873, contends that at that time there was a formal separation between them, the husband consenting to a decree of divorce on the bill of the wife then pending, and that he then abandoned his marital rights over her and her estate. In support of this position a written instrument signed by the parties on that day has been produced, and upon the construction and...