Snook v. Munday

Boyd, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. John Munday, by his last will and testament, which was admitted to probate by the Orphans’ Court of Washington County, left certain real estate to his wife, Elizabeth Munday, “ to have and to hold for the term of her natural life and at her death to be sold by my hereinafter executrixs and the proceeds to be applied first, to the payment of the mortgage debt, principal and interest which is now upon my farm, and the balance to be distributed ” as therein directed. Pie appointed his two daughters, Catharine V. Snook and Sallie E. Zentmyer, his executrices, and directed them to sell, after his death, two lots and some personal property and to apply the proceeds towards the payment of the mortgage. Those lots were not included in the ⁷⁰² property left to Mrs. Munday for life and were sold and the proceeds applied as directed.

The widow filed a petition in the Orphans’ Court of Washington County in which she stated that she found that by reason of her age she was not' able to farm the land left her for life so as to obtain sufficient money to live, pay taxes and interest on the mortgage debt, or to keep the improvements in good repair and condition. She then alleged that it would be to her advantage, as well as to the advantage of all in interest, that the land be sold by the executrices and the proceeds arising therefrom applied to the payment of the mortgage and ’the balance, if any, to be invested for her use and benefit d.uring her life. The Orphans’ Court on that ex-parte petition ordered- the executrices to sell the property, prescribed the terms of sale and directed them to pay the mortgage out of the proceeds of sale and invest the balance, if any, for the the use and benefit of Mrs. Munday during her life. From that order Catharine V. Snook, one of the executrices, took this appeal.

That the Orphans’ Court had no power to pass such order on the ex-parte petition of the life-tenant we can have no doubt. It is a Court of limited jurisdiction and -although there are numerous statutes authorizing them to exercise various powers in connection with the administration of estates, there is none that could give them any authority to pass an order of this character. By sec. 256 of Art. 93 of the Code it is provided that they “shall not, under pretext of incidental power or constructive authority, exercise any jurisdiction not expressly conferred by law.” A Court of Equity could not on an ex-parte application of a life-tenant pass such an order; Section 198 of Art. 16 of the Code does provide that when one or more persons is or are entitled to certain estates therein named, 'including an estate for life, and others have remainders or other interests in the same lands, a Court of Equity can, on application of any of the parties in interest, decree a sale thereof and an investment of the proceeds “ if it shall appear to be advantageous ⁷⁰³ to the parties concerned,” and “ if all the parties in being are parties to the proceeding,” but even that Court, broad as its powers are, could not pass a valid decree without having the parties interested before it,