Hayden v. Stevens

Bond, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. t An executor and his attorney appeal in this proceeding from an order of the Orphans’ Court denying a petition for compensation of the attorney to be paid out of the assets of the estate. ¹⁸ Mr. Hayden, executor of the estate of Robert L. Stevens, deceased, had an assignment from Stevens of “twenty per cent of each and all my (Stevens’) benefits under and arising out of purchase agreement between Robert L. Stevens and Robert Stevens Einstein dated October 15th, 1934, and Escrow Agreement between Robert L. Stevens, Robert Stevens Einstein and First National Bank” attached*. Einstein was purchasing sixty-one and a half shares of stock of C. E. Stevens Brothers Company which the testator owned. The agreement of purchase provided for payments in instalments and was to become null and void upon default in the payments. Mr. Hayden had been a friend and adviser of Stevens, and the assignment of “benefits” of the selling-agreement was intended to compensate him for legal services.

During the life of' Stevens he received his share of amounts paid by Einstein. But after Stevens’ death a default in payments occurred and the stock was returned to the executor, Mr. Hayden, in accordance with the contract. Mr. Hayden, claiming that the assignment of “benefits under and arising out of the purchase agreement” secured him personally twenty per cent of the stock so returned, did not, as executor, include that portion in the inventory of assets, and certain next of kin, contending that the benefits under the agreement terminated with the default in it, filed a bill of complaint in equity seeking a declaratory decree to determine the rights of the parties. Mr. Hayden obtained an order of the Orphans’ Court authorizing him to employ counsel to present his defense, and the counsel employed demurred to the bill, denying the construction favorable to the estate, and asserting that which would secure the disputed stock to Mr. Hayden personally.

On the demurrer the bill was dismissed because the proper jurisdiction for the controversy was. in the Orphans’ Court, under sections 253 and 254 of article 93 of the Code. The complainants accordingly filed their petition in the Orphans’ Court; Mr. Hayden, by his counsel answered, ¹⁹ setting out at length facts and contentions in his favor and against the contentions of the next of kin. The Orphans’ Court found for the petitioners, but on appeal, the Superior Court of Baltimore City differed, and found Mr. Hayden entitled. The petition for payment of the counsel fee followed, and was denied.

The question, as argued, is whether the estate is properly chargeable on the theory that the settlement of Mr. Hayden’s right was a necessary step in the administration, and the legal services were rendered to him in his representative capacity, or whether the expense must be considered as Mr. Hayden’s own, incurred in support of a claim adverse to the estate. This court is of the opinion that inclusion in the account as a charge against the estate was properly refused. The court is referred