Reese v. Starner

Briscoe, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The questions, on this appeal, arise upon the distribution of the personal estate of Robert E. Reese, of Baltimore City. The facts are undisputed and are submitted, upon an agreed statement of facts. The Orphans’ Court of Baltimore City held that one-half of the estate should be distributed to his widow, the appellant, and the remaining one-half to his mother Tabitha L. Starner, one of the appellees.

The widow has appealed. The decedent died in August, 1905, intestate, leaving a personal estate approximating seven thousand dollars and letters of administration were duly granted to his widow, and Alfred D. Bernard of Baltimore City. By the agreed statement of facts, it appears, that the intestate was the illegitimate child of Tabitha L. Starner, the appellee ; that the mother of the deceased married after his birth a man by the name of Babylon, by whom she had seven children, now living ; that the deceased left no child, children or descendants, and that the appellant was married to the deceased and is his widow. That there are no other children or descendants of the appellee.

It will be thus seen, that the claimants of the property, in controversy, are his widow, the appellant, who claims the whole of the estate, and his mother, the appellee, who asserts a claim to one-half thereof. The question presented is a narrow one and we have had no difficulty in reaching a conclusion in regard to it. The Code, Art. 46, sec. 30, provides where an illegitimate child or children shall die, leaving no descendants or brothers ⁵² or sisters or the descendants of such brothers and sisters then and in that case, the mother of such illegitimate child or children if living shall inherit both real and personal estate from such illegitimate child or children ; and if the mother, be dead, then and in that case, the heirs at law of the mother shall inherit the real and personal estate of such illegitimate child or children in like manner as if such illegitimate child or children had been born in lawful wedlock. Whatever then may have been the law of this State, prior to the passage of the Act of 1868, Chapter 199, codified as Art. 46, sec. 30, of the Code of 1888, and the same section and Article of Code 1904, it must be clear that since this Act, the mother of an illegitimate child, dying without descendants, or brothers or sisters or the descendants of such brothers and sisters, can inherit both real and personal estate from such illegitimate child.

The language of the Act heretofore set out, is plain and explicit, and can admit of no dispute. The difficulty suggested by the appellant, that because the Act of 1868, chapter 199, was codified in the Code of 1888, and the present Code of 1904, under Art. 46, title Inheritances, instead of under Art. 93, of the Code, sub-title Distribution, and employs the word “inherit,” the Act does not apply to personal