Crothers v. Crothers

Stockbridge, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Charles 0. Crothers died in 1897 in Cecil county leaving a last will, by which he named his brothers, Augustus C. Crothers, of Harford county, and Austin L. Crothers, of Cecil county, his executors. The will was admitted to probate and letters testamentary were issued by the Orphans’ ¹¹⁶ Court for Cecil County, to the executors named, in Hoy ember, 1897.

Ho further proceedings appear to have been had in the Orphans’ Court in connection with the estate until the year 1912, when a petition was filed by Augustus C. Crothers embodying the following allegations: That no inventory of the estate had ever been returned by the executors and no account passed of their administration of the estate; that the active administration of the estate had been entirely confided by the petitioner to his co-executor, Austin L. Crothers, who died in 1912, testate, naming his nephews, Emerson R. Crothers and Omar D. Crothers as his executors, who had qualified as such; that Austin L. Crothers in his lifetime gave the petitioner little or no information concerning the estate of Charles C. Crothers. The petition then concludes with a prayer that the Court “pass an order commanding and directing the said Emerson R. Crothers and Omar I). Crothers, executors of Austin L. Crothers, deceased, to file in this Court a full, itemized and detailed statement of the assets belonging to said estate; the amount that has been distributed, and the amount or amounts still due and owing any of the devisees or legatees under the will of the late Charles C. Crothers, and also directing the executors of the said Austin L. Crothers, deceased, to pay over to this petitioner any and all sums of money remaining in the hands of their testator at the time of his death belonging to the estate of the said Charles C. Crothers, deceased, in order that your petitioner may be »enabled to bring the same into this Court and distribute it under its order.” In response to this the executors of Austin L. Crothers did, in August, file an inventory and a full itemized account,' which showed the estate of Charles C. Crothers overpaid to the amount of $1,871.05. Thereupon the petitioner, one of the original executors, filed exceptions "to each and every item for payments and allowances” set forth in the account as rendered and excepted "especially to the item of payment of legacy of this exceptant of thirty-five hundred dollars} ¹¹⁷ less collateral inheritance tax, but avers and alleges that the same has not been paid, and the other items for which credit is claimed in said account no vouchers have been presented to this Court for same.” After these exceptions had been filed the executors of Austin L. Crothers filed an amended answer in which they set up a lack of jurisdiction in the Court to entertain the petition, and apparently the Orphans’ Court adopted that view, as it dismissed the petition.

It must not be lost sight of that the deceased, Austin L. Crothers and the petitioner occupied the relation to this estate of co-executors, and that “co-executors are regarded in law as an individual person, and by consequence the acts of any one of them in respect to the administration of the effects are deemed to be the acts of all; for they have joint and entire authority, over the whole property,” Watkins v. Shaw, 2 G. & J. 220 , and the possession cf one executor is the possession of all, Montgomery v. Black, 4 H. & McH. 391 , and whatever powers and duties existed in the executors and remained unexecuted or unfulfilled passed to the survivor, Code (1912), Article 93, section 296. When, therefore, an executor rests inactive for a period of fifteen years and until his co-executor has died, before making any move, so far as the record discloses, to expedite the administration of an estate for which he was equally responsib.e with his co-executor, he is not in a position to commend himself especially to a Court as an injured party. He makes no allegation of waste committed or assets concealed by his co-executor, and for that reason the petition filed by him cannot be treated as an application by one executor against his co-executor upon either of these grounds. Because of the fact that in law two or more executors of a