Norment v. Brydon

Brent, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This appeal is from an order of the Orphans’ Court of Garrett County, by which the appellants, as executors of Ulysses Ward, late of Washington City, in the District of Columbia, are directed to execute a deed to the appellee, Brydon, conveying to him certain real estate, lying in that county, which belonged to their testator, Ward. As shown by the record before us, the first proceeding, taken in this matter before the Orphans’ Court of Garrett County, is a report under the oath of the appellants, stating that they had sold the real estate in question to Brydon, in pursuance of powers contained in. the last will of Ulysses Ward, late of the District of Columbia. This sale so reported, was finally ratified by that Court on the 28th of October, 1878.

The will is not exhibited, nor does it appear that it was ever filed and recorded in the office of the Register of Wills of Garrett County. The next proceeding before the Orphans’ Court, is on the 9th of March, 1875, when Brydon filed his petition, asking that an order may be passed directing the appellants to execute to him a deed. From this petition, it appears, that' the terms of sale had not been complied with by him, but he asserts his readiness and ability then to pay the purchase money with interest, and files an exhibit of the amount due. Upon this petition the Orphans’ Court on the same day passed an order directing the executors to execute a deed, for the laod in question, to Brydon, upon the payment of the purchase money then due, amounting with interest, to the sum of $1043.60.

The appellants, among other objections to this order, have interposed the want of jurisdiction in the Orphans’ Court to pass it — first, upon the ground that they never had jurisdiction of the case, because the requirements of the Act of 1872, eh. 451, conferring the jurisdiction, had ¹¹⁶ not been complied with ; and secondly, if they had any jurisdiction over the case, it did not go to the extent of decreeing a specific performance by directing the execution of a deed, hut was limited to the ratification of the sale. The decision of the first objection made to the jurisdiction, will render it unnecessary to consider the second. By