Richmond v. Richmond

Urner, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. A petition filed by the appellee on November 30th, 1928, in the court below, alleged that her husband, Samuel White Bichmond, was then, and had been for more than a month, in a state of unconsciousness in consequence of injuries received in an automobile accident, and that, as he¡ was injured in the course of his employment as a traveling salesman, a claim should be made in his! behalf under the Workmen’s Compensation Law (Code art. 101, sec. 1, et seq., as amended), for which purpose, and for the collection of certain disability insurance to which he was entitled, the petitioner asked to be appointed as her husband’s committee. Accompanying the petition were certificates of two physicians, stating that the petitioner’s husband was suffering from a severe contusion of the brain, and had not recovered consciousness since the accident, and that it would probably be several months before he could return to work or “attend to matters requiring conscious thought.” Upon the basis of the facts thus presented the chancellor appointed the appellee as committee of her husband’s property and estate, with authority to file and prosecute his claim under the Workmen’s Compensation Law, and to collect all money payable to him, and to use such amount of his funds as might be needed for his care and maintenance. The order of appointment stated that it was temporary and intended to continue in effect only until the improved mental condition of the petitioner’s husband would enable him to manage his affairs and permit the discharge of his committee.

Three years later the appellee, desiring to be relieved of further service as committee, filed a petition to that end, ³⁹⁰ and with it submitted a statement, under oath, of her receipts and disbursements. To- the audit, based on that statement, exceptions were filed by a niece of Samuel White Richmond in the character of his next friend. Meanwhile he had in his own name filed a petition referring to the application of his wife to be discharged as committee of his estate and requesting that his nephew, James M. Richmond, Jr., be appointed as her successor. The exceptions to the audit alleged that Mrs. Richmond had not accounted for various sums received by her as committee in the course of her administration.

After a hearing, the court below overruled the exceptions and, with a minor correction, ratified the audit. From the order of ratification the niece and nephew, in their respective capacities of next friend and newly appointed committee, have appealed. The appellee in her report as committee charged herself Avith receipts aggregating $6,282.65 for the entire period of her administration, and credited herself with expenditures to the total amount of $6,180.46. Additional receipts of $336 were reported by her to the auditor.

When allowances had been made for commissions, costs, a counsel fee, and some items of expense incurred after the committee’s report was filed, an overpayment of $188.88 was indicated. The receipts of the committee were mainly from the liability insurance of her husband’s employer, and from benefits payable by a commercial