Richardson v. Smith

Bryan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This appeal is taken from an order of the Orphans’ Court of Baltimore County, which refused to grant an issue prayed on the part of the appellant, and instead thereof granted two others prayed on the part of tho appellees. Caroline or Carrie Richardson filed a petition containing the following statement: “ That she is a sister of Samuel Richardson, late of Baltimore County, deceased, who died unmarried and intestate, leaving no father, mother, brother, nor any other sister him surviving ; and that she is entitled to letters of administration upon his estate in preference to any other person ; but without notice to your petitioner application has been made and letters of administration, granted by this Honorable Court to Eliza A. Smith, an aunt of the deceased.” The petition prayed a revocation of the letters of administration and general relief. Eliza Smith answered the petition and admitted the grant of letters to her, and that she was an aunt of the decedent.

She denied the petitioner’s right to letters, and averred that she was fully aware of the application for them and the grant of them to the respondent. She also made this statement in her answer: “ That she admits the death, intestate, of said decedent, and that he left him surviving neither parent, brother or sister, or descendant, but she denies that there ever was any other offspring than said de cedent of any marriage of his father, William Richardson, late of said Baltimore County, deceased, or of any marriage of his mother, Lucy Richardson, also late of said county, ⁹⁶ deceased.” This is an argumentative denial that the peti tioner is a sister of the decedent. Of course, in considering this traverse we have no reference to the exceptional cases of the rights conferred on illegitimate children by the one hundred and thirty-fourth section of Article ninety-three of the Code. There is no averment of illegitimacy either in the petition or answer, and it would be irrelevant to consider it.

It is not questioned by either party that it was proper to determine by appropriate proceedings the petitioner’s claim of relationship to the decedent, before considering the question whether there had been a forfeiture of the right of administration. The propriety of such a course is established by Reilly v. Dougherty, 60 Md. 276 . The appellant asked the Court to send this issue to a jury, to wit: “Whether the petitioner, Carrie Richardson, .is the sister of Samuel Richardson, deceased.” This was the point of controversy between the parties. It was the matter affirmed on one side and denied on the other.

The question was presented clearly, distinctly, perspicuously and accurately. The form in which it was expressed agrees with Lord Coke’s definition of an issue, which he declares to be “ a single certain and material point issuing out of the allegations of the plaintiff and defendant.” We think that this issue ought to have been granted been granted by the Orphans’ Court. They, however, refused it and granted two others. The first one is as follows: “Is Caroline Richardson, otherwise called Caroline Parsons, the daughter, born in wedlock, of William Richardson, late of Baltimore County, deceased, and Isabella