Bowie v. Ghiselin

Bautou, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. These appeals are in the same record, and have been argued together. The first is from an order of the Orphans’ Court of Prince George’s county, passed on the 22d day of March, 1869, directing the appellant as executor of Catharine Bowie, deceased, to pay to the appellee, or bring into that Court to be paid to her, the sum of $755, with interest from the 12th day of April, 1862, and $8.30 costs — being the amount of her judgment claim against the appellant’s testatrix, filed with her petition. After the appeal from the order of the 22d of March, had been taken, the appellee filed a petition in the Orphans’ Court, alleging that the appellant had failed and refused to • comply with said order, and had entered an appeal therefrom; and suggesting that the appeal did not have the effect to stay any proceedings which might with propriety be carried on in that Court, in reference to so much of the said order as directs the said executor to bring the said sum of money into the Court to he paid to the petitioner, because that Court has the power to provide for conforming to the decision of the Court of Appeals, in the matter of the appeal, whether the said decision may eventually be for or against the appellant; by directing the said sum of money and interest thereon, when so brought in, to be deposited in bank or invested under its order, until the decision of said appeal in tbe Court of Appeals ; and praying tliat an order might be passed directing an attachment to be issued against the appellant, to compel him to bring the said sum of money and interest thereon into Court, tbe same to be deposited in bank, or invested as the Court may see fit, until the said appeal is decided by the Court of Appeals. ⁵⁵⁶ Upon this petition, the Orphans’ Court passed an order, dated the 10th day of April, 1869, directing an attachment to be issued against the lands, tenements, goods, and chattels of the appellant, to compel him to bring into Court, the sum of money and interest thereon, as directed by the previous order passed on the 22d of March, 1869, to be deposited in bank, or invested under the order of the Court as they may see fit, until the decision of the Court of Appeals, in the matter of the appeal from said previous order.

The order of the 10th of April, directing an attachment, forms the subject of the second appeal. It has been repeatedly decided that the Orphans’ Courts of this State, are tribunals of special and limited jurisdiction, deriving their powers from statutory provisions. By the Code, Art. 93, sec. 252, it is declared that they u shall not under pretext of incidental power or constructive authority, exercise any jurisdiction not expressly conferred by law.” See Townshend vs. Brooke, 9 Gill, 91 , 92, and cases there cited. We refer also to Lowe vs. Lowe, 6 Md., 347 and Miller, Adm’r of Pottinger vs. Dorsey, 9 Md., 317 .

In this last case • it was expressly decided, that “ until a Court of law shall have definitively pronounced on the validity of the claim (of a creditor,) the Orphans’ Court has no power against the protestation of the administrator to decree its payment.” In the absence of any provision of law conferring upon the Orphans’ Court jurisdiction and power to decide upon the validity of th'e claim of a creditor, or to determine its amount, and to compel an executor to pay the same, or to •bring money into Court for its payment, we are compelled to say that the order in this