Daugherty v. Daugherty

Roberts, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appeal in this case is taken from an order of the Orphans’ Court of Harford County refusing letters of administration on the personal estate of John Daugherty, deceased, to the appellant, who is a son of the deceased. The petition of the appellant alleges that his father, John Daugherty, died intestate about April ist, 1895, leaving three sons surviving him, the appellant and his two brothers, Thomas B. and John C. Daugherty, who are both older than the appellant. That no application for letters of administration has been made by any one and no letters ever granted.

The appellant by his petition also alleges that his two brothers and his sisters, sometime before the death of their father, the intestate, and while he was of unsound mind, possessed themselves of all his personal estate and appropriated the same to their own use. That for the purpose of contesting the- validity of such transfer and to compel his said brothers and sisters to account for the money and securities obtained by them from their father when he was of unsound mind, incompetent to execute a valid deed, the appellant filed this petition and application in the Orphans’ Court of Harford County, asking the grant of letters of administration to him. Cititation was accordingly issued by the Orphans’ Court for the appellees to show cause why letters of administration should not be granted. The appellees filed separate answers under oath to said petition, in which they both admit that no administration on their father’s estate has ever been granted to any one, and by their answers deny that John Daugherty, their father, at the time of his death and for many years prior thereto, was possessed of personal estate of any kind or character whatsoever.

The case was submitted to the Court on petition and answers without replication, and no testimony was, taken by either party in support of the allegations of the petition or answers. The petition and answers were both sworn to. The hearing was had before two of the Judges of the ²³¹ Orphans’ Court, and the Court not being able to agree, an order was passed refusing letters of administration to the appellant, and from this order the appeal in this case is taken. There is practically but one question arising on this appeal which it is necessary for us to consider.

The appellant seeks to contest the validity of the transfer by his father in his lifetime, of his personal property, to his two older sons, the appellees and his daughters, at a time when his father was incompetent to execute a valid deed or contract. In a proceeding of this character we do not think the Orphans’ Court is possessed of jurisdiction requisite to the determination of the question involved. It would undoubtedly, in a proper case, have full power and authority to hear and determine a question of concealment of property belonging to the intestate, if the application be made as required by law, but this is clearly not a question of