Bushong v. Clark
Urner, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appeal in this case is from three orders of the Orphans’ Court of Anne Arundel County. The first of those orders, dated March 5th, 1935, rejected the petition of the appellants, as heirs and next of kin of Oliver Clinton Bushong, deceased, that the appellee, as administratrix, be required to file an account and distribution of the estate. By the second of the orders appealed from, which was passed on March 7th, 1935, the court rescinded its order of September 6th, 1934, which revoked its ratification, on August 24th, 1934, of the first and final account filed by the administratrix on the preceding day.
The 662 third order questioned by the appeal dismissed, on March 19th, 1935, a petition of the appellants for the rescission of the order of March 7th. In the administration account, both as originally and as finally ratified, provision was made for the payment of a personal claim of the administratrix against the decedent. The claim, amounting to $1,560, was expressed as being for “board, laundry and nursing care for three years at $10.00 per week.” There was no indication by date as to when that period began or ended. The affidavit to the claim was not in full compliance with the provisions of sections 93 and 97 of article 93 of the Code.
Bogart v. Willis, 158 Md. 393 , 148 A. 585 . The whole of the personal estate remaining after the payment of costs, commissions, and funeral expenses would be exhausted by the allowance of the claim. It is inferable from the record that the rescission by the Orphans’ Court of its first order, ratifying the administration account, was on the ground that the estate had not been duly inventoried. But the effect of the rescinding order was to place those interested in objecting to the account in the position which they occupied in that respect before it was presented.
They were unquestionably entitled to an opportunity to contest the account, or any of its items, when it was resubmitted for the court’s approval. It was for the purpose of
This is a preview of Bushong v. Clark. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.