Dorsey v. Dorsey
Boyd, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from an order of the Orphans’ Court- of Howard County, granting letters of administration to Mary C. Dorsey, upon tlie estate of Howard C. Dorsey, to act in conjunction with George H. Dorsey, to whom letters of administration upon said estate had been granted. The appellee filed a petition alleging that she is the widow of Howard O. Dorsey, who died intestate on the third of July, 1921, leaving srrrviving him the petitioner, his widow, and five children — three daughters and two sons; that she is one of those entitled to he appointed administrator, in the discretion of the court, and that both of her sons, William Olagett Dorsey and George H. Dorsey, are non-residents of the State; that George H. Dorsey surreptitiously, and without consulting with or advising the petitioner, or William Clagett Dorsey, or, as far as. she is advised, any of her children, applied on the 12th of July last for letters, of administration on said estate and they were granted to him on that day; that, although a resident of the Sfatc, she had no notice or intimation that he intended or contemplated apply 169 ing for letters until a day or two after they were granted, when she was, informed by one of her daughters that he had told her that the court had appointed him; that said George H. Dorsey is largely indebted to the estate, having: through means unknown to her had practically all of the assets properly belonging to the estate transferred to his individual name, and now holds said securities and assets, claiming them as his own; that neither the petitioner nor any of her children are willing to have him undertake the sole administration of the estate, and she filed a request, signed by the three daughters, requesting her appointment as oo-administrator with the said George H. Dorsey — the said William Clagett Dorsey acquiescing in the, said request; that she is advised and so charges that the appointment of George IT. D'orsey was improper’ and illegal in view of the fact, that, she had no notice of his intention to apply for letters, and she being a resident, of the State and within a short distance of her husband’s borne, is within the class who are entitled to notice.
She then prays that she may be granted letters, of administration in conjunction with those heretofore granted to George IT. Dorsey, and for further relief. An order was passed on the 19 th of July, 1921, that George II. Dorsey show cause on or before the 25th of July, 1921, why the relief prayed for in the petition be not granted.
On the latter day, he filed an answer, by which he admits that the petitioner is the widow of Howard C. Dorsey, who died intestate on the 3rd of July, 1921, leaving surviving him the widow, the three daughters and the two sons; he admits that William Olagett Dorsey is a non-resident but denies that he is a non-resident, and on the contrary says he is an officer in the Fiuted States Army and when he entered the army he was a resident of Maryland and, although temporarily stationed at Denver, Colorado’, he still retains his legal residence in Maryland; he admits that letters wore granted to him on the 12th of July, 1921, and he has qualified and undertaken to administer the estate, but lie denies that lie made application surreptitiously, as alleged in said petition, 170 and avers that before making application be consulted with two- of his sisters and was advised by them that they and their mother were perfectly willing for him to- administer; he denies that Mary O. Dorsey was entitled to notice and avers that the court has full power and authority to grant letters without notice to anyone; he denies, that, he is indebted to the estate in any manner, -shape or form; alleges that Mary O. Dorsey had been separated from her husband and had not lived with him for several years, and since her separation she had made her home with her son, William Olage-tt Dorsey, and had spent the greater part of the last several years in Florida, where William Olagett Dorsey is in business and resides; that his father had often in his life time
This is a preview of Dorsey v. Dorsey. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.