Hokamp v. Hagaman

Stewart, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Conrad and Margaret Hagaman were duly married, and lived together as' husband and wife for a long time. In June, 1867, a decree was passed by the Circuit Court for Howard county, divorcing them a mensa et thoro ; and it was further decreed, in accordance with an agreement of the parties, through their solicitors, that Hagaman pay to his wife the sum of $ 1,676, in full of all arrears for counsel fees and alimony, which shall also free him from any obligation to contribute to her support in the future, and release all claims •of his wife for dower and thirds in any property now held, or hereafter acquired by him. This sum was paid by the husband.

The parties, in August, 1867, became reconciled, and lived together as man and wife until March, 1869 — the husband holding her out to the world as his wife; and as such they were known and recognized. They separated again for a time. In the month of June, 1870, they lived together as husband and wife for a while. Hagaman departed this life, after having duly executed his last will and testament.

He never had any child, and left no parent, brother or sister. His widow, Margaret, survived him. He made no devise or bequest of any of his property to her, and she claimed the whole of his personal estate, after payment of debts and funeral expenses. The devisees and legatees in the will insist that she has no valid claim to any part of his estate.

The Orphans’ Court of Howard county, on the 26th of September, 1871, decreed that the executor of Hagaman ⁵¹⁷ allow, in liis administration account, the one-half of his personal estate, after payment of debts and funeral charges, to his widow. Erom this decree both the executor and the widow have appealed. Two questions have been made: 1st. Has the Orphans’ Court authority, since the decree of the Circuit Court, divorcing the parties a mensa et thoro, with the accompanying terms, to take cognizance of the case? 2d.

If the widow is not barred of her rights by the decree, what portion of the estate of her husband, if any, is she entitled to, under the circumstances ? There is no doubt that, under the 26th section of Article 16 of the Code, the Circuit Court for Howard county, as a Court of Equity, had the power to decree the divorce a mensa et thoro of the parties; and that section also authorizes the Court “ to award to the wife the property held by her, when married, or its value, or of such part