Geesey v. Geesey

Boyd, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is the second time this controversy has been before us — the report of the case on the former appeal being found in 94 Md. 371 . The Orphans’ Court of Frederick County passed an order rescinding its order of ratification of an account which had been stated by the appellant, and ratified by that Court, without giving him an opportunity to prove the value of the service of his counsel, and the propriety of the allowance of fees paid by him, for which he had been credited in that account. The items objected to were for fees paid by the administrator in four cases, amounting to $195.00, which had been included in the account under the term “ costs ” and were not specifically brought to the attention of the Orphans’ Court.

We said in that case, and repeat now, after an examination of this record, that there is nothing to justify the charge or insinuation that Mr. Heagey attempted to impose on the Court or the deputy register of wills who stated the account. He signed a receipt for his fee in each of the four cases on the statements filed by the administrator, and although the Chief Judge of the Orphans’ Court testified that it was not the custom of that Court to examine all vouchers, as we said in the former opinion, “ Mr. Heagey might well have assumed that they would be examined by the Court before the account was ratified," or, we might add, that the deputy register of wills, who stated the account, would necessarily do so in the discharge of his duties. Of course it is possible for the Court in examining an account, of this kind before ratifying it to over ⁶³² look some items which it would not allow if its attention had been specially directed to them, and mistakes may occur, but we did not in the former opinion, and do not now refer to this, by way of criticism of the Court below, but to show that in our opinion there is no reason to impute improper motives to •the administrator or to his attorney by reason of the manner in which the receipts for these fees were given and filed. As we said in the former appeal, the Orphans’ Court has the power to re-open accounts of executors and administrators and correct errors therein, and we remanded the case so that the matter could be properly investigated and acted on by the Court.

The administrator had paid the attorney the fees allowed in the account, and as we are satisfied that both of them acted in good faith, the account as stated should not be disturbed unless there was manifest error in these allowances. The Chief Judge of the Orphans’ Court was of the opinion that the fees in the first account were to include services rendered and to be rendered,