Grimes v. Talbert

Baiitol, J., delivered the opinion of this court. This is an appeal from an order of the orphans court for Prince George’s county, refusing to grant letters of administration on the personal estate of James D. Barrett, deceased. It appears from the record, that the deceased died on the 10th of May 1830, leaving a widow, Lucy Barrett, who has since intermarried with John P. Talbert, and several children, among whom is Elizabeth, wife of Grimes, the appellant. No administration has ever been granted on his estate.

On the 11th of May 1858, a petition was filed in the orphans court, by the appellants, alleging, that said James D. Barrett left, at the time of his death, two negro women, named Charlotte and Nelly, which, after his death, were taken possession of by his widow, who, with her husband, Talbert, is in possession of all the said original personal estate and the increase thereof, which has not been disposed of by them. ¹⁷² That negro woman Charlotte has five children, all valuable negro slaves for life, and they are now in the possession of Talbert and wife. That Nelly was, years ago, sold by Lucy Barrett, the widow, without authority of law, and now has several children, all going at large, in Washington city, as free. The petition prays that an order may be passed, directing summons to be issued, requiring Talbert and wife and the children of James D. Barrett, deceased, to show cause why letters of administration on the personal estate of said deceased, should not be granted to some one, in the discretion of the court, thereto entitled under the law, &c. Summons was issued, as prayed, and the answers of the appellees were filed, denying that the negroes, Charlotte and Nelly were, or that either of them ever was, the property of James D. Barrett, asserting that they belonged to others, and alleging that the deceased had left no property, at the time of his death, to be administered, Proof was taken on both sides, and appears in the record, which it is not necessary for us particularly to notice, further than to say, that it is conflicting upon the question of title to the property.

The Act of 1798, ch. 101, sub-ch. 5, sec. 2, makes it the duty