Hundley v. Hundley

Henderson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. On July 15, 1959, the appellants, the wife and a business associate of the appellee, were appointed co-committees and co-trustees of the property of the appellee, who was found to be of unsound mind, upon petition filed by them as next friends under Code (1957), Art. 16, sec. 135. See Matter of Easton, 214 Md. 176 . On January 24, 1962, after a full hear ³⁹⁵ ing on petition of the appellee, the Chancellor found the appellee to be competent to manage his affairs, and passed an order discharging the appellants and requiring them to account.

Subsequently, the Chancellor passed an order denying the appellants permission to appeal under Maryland Rule V77 b, an order appointing receivers who have acted as solicitors for the appellee, and an order holding the appellants in contempt. Separate appeals were filed from each order. As to the last, there is a motion for severance. The appellees filed a motion to dismiss the first three appeals, on the ground that the •appellants lack standing to appeal.

They disavow any interest in the last appeal, and make no motion in regard thereto. Hence, we express no opinion and take no action in regard to it. We think the motion to dismiss the first three appeals must be granted. It has been held that a guardian appointed to take charge of and manage the property of an incompetent is not a person aggrieved by an order of restoration.

Ensign v. Faxon, 112 N. E. 948 (Mass.). Cf. Wattrich v. Blakney, 118 A. 2d 332 (Me.). There are cases to the contrary.

See In re Bayer’s Estate, 185 P. 606 (Wash.), and Note 122 A.L.R. 541 . The Maryland statute, Code (1957), Art. 5, sec. 6, provides that “Any party” may appeal from any final decree of a court of equity, but it is well settled that a conventional trustee