Mack v. Pairo

¹⁸⁰ Burke, J., prepared the opinion, which was, after his resignation, adopted by the Court. Ella M. Thompson, colored, the wife of Thomas W. Thompson, died in the Oity of Baltimore on the 22nd day of April, 1919. She left surviving her as her only heirs and next of kin her husband and two sisters, Kate Mack Washington, Annie Roeback, and Isaac Mack, a brother. Letters of administration upon her estate were granted to her brother by the Orphans’ Court of Baltimore City.

Upon the petition of the administrator the Orphans’ Court, under Section 143 of Article 93 of the Code, designated the 16th day of Decern-1 ber, 1919, for a meeting of the distributees of the estate. The petition stated that questions had arisen as. to the persons entitled to distribution in the estate, and that the petitioner was unwilling to proceed with the distribution, except under the direction of the Court. 1 The fourth paragraph of the petition is as follows: “That your petitioner states that the persons entitled to shares in the said estate are Kate Mack Washington and Annie Roeback, sisters of said decedent, an absconding husband known as Thomas W. Thompson, and your petitioner, who is a brother of the decedent.” All the parties appeared on the appointed day and testimony was adduced by the petitioner tending to show that the husband, Thomas W. Thompson, had left his wife a number of years prior to her death, and had been living in adultery with a woman whose name is not disclosed by the record. The contention of the petitioner is that these facts, if proved, deprived him of distribution in his wife’s estate. This contention rests upon the Statute of 13 Edward 1, Ch. 34, which is as follows: “And if a wife willingly leave her husband, and go away, and continue with her advouterer, she shall be barred forever of action to demand her dower, that she ought to have of her husband’s lands, if she be convict thereupon, except that her husband willingly, and without eoertion of ¹⁸¹ the church, reconcile her, and suffer her to dwell with him; in which case she shall be restored to her action.” If it be granted that this statute is in force in Maryland and is under the rules of interpretation stated in Article 1 of the Code applicable to the husband as well as the wife, the record does not show that the wife died seised of any property to which it could apply.

In Thomas on Coke on Littleton; Vol. 1, page 569, it is said: “Tenant in dower