Bates v. Revell

Burke, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Octavia Williams Bates, an unmarried woman, died in Baltimore City on the 12th day of January, 1911, leaving a last will and testament by which she disposed of a large estate. The greater part of this estate was given by the will to certain educational and charitable institutions. She left surviving her a brother, George Williams Bates, a resident of the State of Michigan, to whom she bequeathed the sum of five thousand dollars.

The will was dated June 5th, 1908, and it appointed her brother executor thereof. By codicil dated December 30th, 1910, the Safe Deposit and Trust Company of Baltimore was -substituted as executor in the place of her .brother, George Williams Bates, and on June 5th, 1911, by a second codicil E. John W. Revell was appointed executor in the place and stead of the Safe Deposit '& Trust Company. The will and codicils were admitted to probate by the Orphans’ Court of Baltimore City on the 30th day of January, 1911, and letters testamentary were granted to the appellee as executor. On May 11th, 1911, George Williams Bates, the appellant, filed a caveat to the will and codicils upon the' grounds of mental incapacity, undue influence, fraud, etc., and on the same day filed in the Orphans’ Court a petition asking that the letters testamentary granted to the appellee be revoked and that he be removed as executor.

Serious charges were made against the executor” in the petition. In his answer the appellee denied all the charges which reflected upon his honesty and fitness to act as executor, and gave an explanation of some of the acts and omis ⁶⁹³ sions charged as grounds for his removal. Both the answer and petition are lengthy papers, and in the view we have taken of the case need not he discussed with any particularity. The issues made hy tlie petition and answer1 were tried by the Orphans’ Court, of Baltimore City.

The trial consumed more than a week, the appellant relying largely upon the testimony of the executor, whom he placed upon the stand, to prove his case. On July 6th, 1911, the Court passed the following order: “The matter of the petition of George Williams Bates coming on to be heard, and the Court having considered the same and the answer thereto, and the testimony advanced in support of said petition, it is ordered by tlie Court this 6th day of July, 1911, that the said petition for the removal of E. John W. Kevell, executor, be and the same is hereby dismissed, the costs to be paid by the petitioner, and it is further ordered that the executor return to the Court the following: An inventory of the wearing apparel and personal effects of the deceased. An inventory of all cash. A list of debts duo by the deceased, and A list of debts due to the estate.” This order was signed by two of tlie judges, but the third while concurring in the order dismissing the petition, was of opinion that the executor should pay the costs of the proceeding.

On July 13th, 1911, the Court passed an order directing the executor to pay out of the funds of the estate to S. Cross Horwitz, who acted as his counsel, the sum of five hundred dollars for services rendered1 in resisting the effort of the petitioner to remove him. The appeals before ns were taken from these orders. We have carefully examined the evidence contained in this record, and, assuming that an order of the Orphans’ Court refusing to revoke letters testamentary is appealable, ⁶⁹⁴ we are all of opinion that the orders from which this appeal was taken should be- affirmed. There is no dispute as to the measure of duty which the law imposes upon an executor in the settlement of the estate, but the question in the case is whether the evidence shows such misconduct or unfitness on his part as would justify his removal.

Miss Bates was a highly educated woman. She had studied law and was a graduate of the University of Michigan, and appeal's to have been a woman of good business capacity. Mr. Bevell had been her attorney since about the year 1896, and had invested large sums of money for her in mortgages and ground rents. All of these investments were profitable to her and well secured.

She had great confidence in Mr. Bevell, and was fully advised of what he had done and had approved his acts, and after an acquaintance and business experience with him extending over a number of years she appointed him