Mott v. Fowler

Fowler, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. . It would be a reproach to the law if such a claim as the appellant is making in this case could be recovered. It appears that the late Caleb S. Maltby, who was a man of large means residing in the State of Connecticut, died there intestate. The principal administration upon his estate was had in that State.

But he also owned some valuable leasehold property in the city of Baltimore, which his widow and two daughters sold, they also being residents of Connecticut. They were advised that they could not make a satisfactory title to the Maryland leasehold estate without administering here. Not desiring to be troubled with the details of this administration, and only for the purpose of making a good title to property they had already sold, they requested the late George P. Mott, who was then in their employ, and had been for a long time employed by the late Mr. Maltby, to act as administrator without compensation. He replied that he would be happy to act in the capacity mentioned if it would spare “the ladies trouble and expense.” And in the same letter in which he made this statement he estimated that the total expenses of administration, not including attorney’s fees, would not exceed $300, giving the two items, viz., State tax on commissions and Court expenses, and excluding all commissions for himself except, of course, sufficient to pay the State tax on administrator’s commissions.

But in addition to this he stated again and again that he was acting without compensation, and when congratulated on the fact that he would-get commissions on a large estate, he replied that “ it did not amount to anything for him, only the honor.” But it is conceded that Mr. Mott agreed to act as administrator without compensation. He died, however, before completing the administration, leaving a will in which the ⁶⁷⁸ appellant, his widow, was named as executrix. She filed a petition in the Orphans’ Court of Baltimore City, claiming commissions for her husband as administrator of C. S. Maltby, and the Court below refused to allow any, and passed an order dismissing her petition. From this order she has appealed.

As we have