In Re Curtis' Estate v. Piersol

Pattison, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from ¡an order of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, sitting in equity, dismissing the bill of the appellant. The bill alleges that Charles II. C. Curtis, father of Charles H. 0.

Curtis, Jr., and Mary T. Donelson, the appellants, died on the 28th diay of January, 1911, after having first made what purported to be his last will and testament, which was filed for probate, but to which a caveat was filed before the same was probated. (The bill further alleges that ITarry A. Piersol, nephew of the said Charles H. C. Curtis, was appointed administrator pendente lite by the Orphans’ Court of said! county. That at the time of the said appointment TI. Seymour Piersol, a nephew of Charles H. C. Curtis, deceased, and who, as the bill alleges, is “named as a remain-derman” in his uncle’s .alleged will, was sitting as one of the judges of said Court.

The bill then alleges that before the appointment of said administrator, (the plaintiffs “moved the Court by petition based upon the 7th section of Article 4 of the Constitution of Maryland, inhibiting a judge, by interest and consanguinity, from sitting in a case wherein he is interested. The motion and petition of your complainants were denied by a divided Court.” It is also alleged by the bill “that the participation of IT. Seymour Piersol, and sitting in said case, was clearly inhibited under and by the laws of Maryland,” and that the appointment of Harry A. Piersol as such administrator was illegal and inoperative. The prayer of the bill then asks, among other things, that ¹⁷² tbe equity Court assume jurisdiction of the estate of Charles H. 0.

Curtis, deceased; that it restrain the said ITarry A. Piersol from performing the duties of such administrator ; and (that a receiver be appointed to take charge of the personal and real estate of the said deceased! under the direction of the equity Court; and for general relief. The appel-lees demurred to the bill and the Court below sustained the demurrer and dismissed the bill. It is from the passage of this order that .the appeal is taken. Section 234'of Article 93 of the Code of Public General Laws confers upon the Orphans’ Court “full power to take probate of wills, grant letters testamentary and of administration, direct the conduct and settling the accounts of executors, administrators, superintend the distribution of the estate of intestates, secure the rights of orphans and legatees and to administer justice in all matters relative to the affairs of deceased personsAs to such powers “¡the Courts of equity shall not interfere; except on account of some special circumstances to which the power of the Orphans’ Court may not be altogether adequate.” Hewitt’s Case, 3 Bland, 186 ; Alexander v. Leakin, 72 Md. 202 ; Macgill v. Hyatt, 80 Md. 256 .

The facts alleged in ithe bill disclose no' circumstances or conditions that warrant the interference of a Court of equity. The case as stated in the bill falls within the ordinary powers of the Orphans’ Court, and there is no necessity for the interference of a Count of equity. Nor do the facts as alleged show the necessity for the appointment of a receiver, as prayed for in the bill. The decedent having been adjudged a lunatic, his property and estate, as alleged in the bill, is in the hands of a committee appointed by the equity Court and is thus in its custody arud control, and if need be, what is sought to be accomplished by a receiver: — the protection of the property and estate of the decedent during the pend-ency .of the questions in controversy — it would seem can be