Havre De Grace Banking & Trust Co. v. Mitchell

Shehan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The Havre de Grace Banking and Trust Company recovered a judgment against Maude R. Mitchell on the 3rd day of March, 1931, for $9,676.40, with interest and costs. On the 17th day of March, 1932, an attachment was issued thereon and on that date the rights, credits, title, and interest of Maude R. Mitchell were attached in the hands of Maude R. Mitchell and Julian F. Mitchell, and Maude R. Mitchell and Julian Mitchell, administrators of the estate of Ralph M. Mitchell, deceased, were summoned as garnishees. This attachment was also laid in the hands of the Citizens’ National Bank of Havre de Grace.

The purpose of the first attachment, as laid, was to ⁷⁰ garnish the one-half of the commissions to which Maude R. Mitchell was or should become entitled to receive as co-administrator of the estate of Ralph M. Mitchell. These administrators filed three administration accounts, the first of which was approved and passed on the 22nd day of February, 1932, by the Register of Wills, in the absence and* recess of the Orphans’ Court of Harford County. In that account there was allowed commissions to the two administrators in the sum of $2,229.12, one-half of which, or $1,114.56, was the net share of the commissions of Maude R. Mitchell. It was shown in evidence, and the court below so found, that this amount was paid by the administrators to Maude R. Mitchell on the 22nd day of February, 1932, the day upon which this administration account was approved and passed by the Register of Wills.

Objections were filed to this account on April 7th, 1932, by the Havre de Grace Banking and Trust Company. On April 19th, 1932, the objections, with the exception of that relating to the funeral expenses, were overruled, and the account as stated was then affirmed. The Deputy Register of Wills testified that distribution and payments were made by the administrators on February 22nd, 1932, and he had personal knowledge of the payment of these commissions. The second administration account was not stated until March 6th, 1933, and the commissions allowed therein were $40.43, or $20.21 to Maude R. Mitchell, and the third administration account showed net commissions of $4.85, or $2.42 to Maude R. Mitchell, as her share, and this account was filed on May 6th, 1933.

It will be observed" that the attachment was laid on March 17th, 1932, approximately twenty-four days after the first administration account was passed and commissions allowed and paid to the administrators for their services, but long before the second and third administration accounts were filed. It is obvious that ordinarily the commissions allowed in the first account, having been ⁷¹ paid before the attachments were laid, would not be affected by the attachment, and equally clear that the other commissions would be subject to the attachment, and this the lower court held, and rendered judgment accordingly. The appellants question the legality of the first administration account because it was approved and passed on the 22nd day of February, 1932, a legal holiday. The statute, Code Pub.

Gen. Laws, art. 13, sec. 9, designates the 22nd of February in each year to be a legal holiday, but this court has held, in Handy v. Maddox, 85 Md. 547 , 37 A. 222 , that this applies to the payment of bills and notes, checks, acceptances and the like, but in other respects it is a voluntary holiday. There is no law forbidding work of any kind to be done on that day. It is not a dies nonjuridieus, and therefore an act done on that day is as effective as if done on any other day.

See also Kelly v. Montebello Park Co., 141 Md. 194 , 118 A. 600 . The more important question is that relating to the validity of the approval and passage of this account by the Register of Wills. It is contended that the account, having been approved and passed only by the Register of Wills, the attachment is effectual against these commissions, for the reason that section 429 of article 13,