McComas v. Wiley

Stockbridge, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This appeal is from the Orphans’ Court of Harford County sustaining the demurrer to a petition filed by Charles LL McOomas and others against the administrators c. t. a. of Charles L. Wiley, deceased. The allegations of the petition may be briefly stated as follows: That on June 28th, 1917, the Orphans’ Court of Harford County appointed Thomas H. Wiley and others administrators c. i. a. of the estate of Charles L. Wiley; that the testator by his will gave to his wife, Mary Edith Wiley, all of his estate, both real and personal; that Mary Edith Wiley died on the same day as the testator, leaving no child, children or descendants of any child, but only her five brothers, as her heirs at law and distributees, and no child or children of any deceased brother or sister; that the petitioners have become entitled to recover all of the personal estate of the said Charles L. Wiley and are now the legal owners of the farm, in Llarford County, consisting of about 119 acres of land, on which the testator resided, and of which he died seized. That the petitioners are desirous of being possessed of said farm as soon as they reasonably can, without in any way interfering with the gathering of the crops growing at the time the petition was filed, and, lastly, that the personal estate of the testator consisted of various chattels used in farming, the crops and a certain life insurance policy, the amount of which was unknown to them.

Ho copy of Mr. Wiley’s will was filed with the petition. ⁴⁰⁸ It was to this petition that the administrators c. t. a. of Charles L. Wiley filed a demurrer, assigning eight grounds of alleged defect, as follows: “1. Because this Court has not jurisdiction to determine the title to personal property; “2. Because this Court has not jurisdiction to determine the title to real estate; “3. Because the petitioner does not set forth sufficient facts to enable this Court to determine the validity or effect of the said will of Charles L. Wiley, deceased; “4.

Because the petitioner does not set forth sufficient facts with reference to the deaths of the said Charles L. .Wiley and of his wife, Mary Edith Wiley, nor the order in which the same occurred, to enable this Court to determine whether or not said will was revoked by the death of the said Mary Edith Wiley. “5. Because it does not appear from said petition who are the heirs at law or distributees of said Charles L. Wiley. “6. Because it does not appear that the said petitioner and his said brothers were the heirs at law and distributees of the said Mary Edith Wiley at the instant of her said death, nor how they became such. “7. Because this Court has no power to adjudicate questions of title dependent upon the operation and effect of a will. “8.

Because the said petition lacks necessary parties, to wit, the heirs at law of the said Charles L. Wiley, who are the said defendants, Thomas H. Wiley, Richard H. Wiley, Harry F. Wiley and Robert L. Wiley, in their individual capacities, and Elizabeth A. Slade, the wife of Asbury Slade, and Caroline B. Anderson, widow, their sisters.” After hearing, the Orphans’ Court of Harford County sustained the demurrer, and dismissed the petition on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. This action of the Orphans’ Court must be affirmed. ⁴⁰⁹ At the argument in this Court facts were alleged and conceded which do not appear in the record, hut to which it .seems necessary to make some reference in order that this opinion may be properly understood. In June, 1917, Mr. and Mrs. Wiley, with their only child Ruth, were crossing the tracks of the ISTorthern Central Railway, when the automobile in which they were riding was struck by an express train, and all three killed, apparently instantaneously. The statement of the petition in regard to Mrs. Wiley that she “departed this life intestate on the same day as the testator leaving no child or children or descendant of any child,” is by no means a full disclosure of the facts, such as the petitioners now concede them to have been.

It is not .stated or alleged whether Mrs. Wiley survived or predeceased her husband, or whether slie died before or after her daughter. A reading of the petition by one not acquainted with the facts would produce an entirely different impression from the events as admitted by counsel to have taken