Reister v. Lane

Shehan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellant, John D. Reister, filed a petition in the Circuit Court of Baltimore City on October 1st, 1937, praying that an order previously passed on the 23rd day of June, 1936, allowing a weekly sum of fifteen dollars for the maintenance, board and care of his sister, Alice ⁴⁷⁹ Mildred Reister, a lunatic, be vacated. The court, after considering the facts stated below, refused the relief prayed and dismissed the petition, from which action this appeal was taken. Miss Reister was adjudged a lunatic on the 18th day of March, 1936, and her sister, Juanita R. Lane, was appointed committee of her person and estate.

The essential averments of the petition are that Alice Mildred Reister had died on December 3rd, 1936, and that the petitioner and Juanita R. Lane were the next of kin of the deceased; that about February, 1936, it was agreed between the petitioner and the sister, Mrs. Lane, that she should be appointed committee for their sister, who should live in the premises 324 N. Monroe Street, owned by Juanita R. Lane and John D. Reister, and that the committee would not charge any board for the said lunatic in consideration of the petitioner’s allowing Mrs. Lane and her family to occupy these premises free of any charge for rent; that on September 21st, 1937, the petitioner first learned, to his surprise, that the committee had procured the order to pay fifteen dollars per week for the purposes above recited and the said sum had not been expended for maintenance, board and care by the said committee, but she had appropriated to her own uses the amount so allowed, and the petitioner had requested his sister to file a petition to strike out the order of the court making such allowance, which she had refused to do, and that his sister is not entitled to any allowance out of the estate of the lunatic for such board, maintenance, and care, because of said agreement. If the alleged contract should be recognized and enforced, the authority of the court in the control and supervision of the person and estate of this lunatic would have been curtailed and she would have been deprived of the enjoyment or benefits of her own property and estate. The welfare of the lunatic cannot thus be