Stouffer v. Stouffer

Briscoe, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The controversy in this case involves the right to letters of administration upon the estate of Hiram D. Stouffer, late of Washington County, deceased. Mr. Stouifer died on the 7th of Hovember, 1908, unmarried, but leaving Charles E. Stouffer, the appellant, a surviving brother, and three sisters, as next of kin. Two of the sisters are unmarried.

Oh the 17th of Uovember, 1908, the brother applied to the Orphans’ Court of Washington County for letters of administration upon the estate of the deceased. Subsequently, on Uovember 20, 1908,- Barbara Stouffer, Mary Stouffer and Emma Wolf kill, the three sisters, filed a petition in the Orphans’ Court wherein they allege that Charles E. Stouffer, applying for letters of administration, “is not the proper person for the trust, and is incapable and incompetent to administer the estate and of serving as administrator upon the estate of the decedent, to the advantage and interest of the parties concerned.” The record shows that this petition was set for hearing on the 30th day of Hovember, 1908. Testimony was taken, and ³⁷⁰ on the 15th day of December, 1908, the Orphans’ Court passed the following order: “The application of Charles E. S. Stouffer for letters of administration upon the personal estate of Hiram D. Stouffer, late of Washington County, deceased, the testimony and other proceedings had in said matter having been read and considered— “It is thereupon this 15th day of December, 1908, by the Orphans’ Court of Washington County ordered that the said application of the said Changes E. S. Stouffer be and the same is hereby refused, and letters of administration upon the personal estate of Hiram D. Stouffer, deceased, is denied to the said applicant, Charles E. S. Stouffer. Costs to be paid out of the estate of Hiram D. Stouffer, dec’d.” And it is from this order that an appeal has been taken to this Court.

The rules of law by which the Orphans’ Courts of this State are to be controlled in granting letters of administration, whether to lineal or collateral relations, males or females, married or unmarried, are well settled, both by statutes and the decisions of this Court. In Pollard, Admr., v. Mohler, 55 Md. 289 , it is said the right of administration is one not resting in the discretion of the Orphans’ Court, but is founded on positive law. By section 21 of Art. 93, Code of Public General Laws, it is provided, if there be neither husband, nor widow, as the case may be, nor child, nor grandchild, nor father, brothers and sisters, shall be preferred, and next to brothers and sisters, the mother shall be preferred. And by section 23 of the same Article it is further provided males shall be preferred to females in equal degree of kin.

In the present case it is conceded the decedent left no widow, child, grandchild, or father, but left one brother, the appellant, two unmarried and one married sister. The brother alone applied for letters of administration, but upon objection of the sisters, treating their petition as an answer to the appellant’s petition for letters of administration, his application was refused and denied by the Orphans’ Court. ³⁷¹ The sole inquiry then is whether or not the appellant, who is the only surviving brother of the deceased, ought to have been appointed administrator under the facts of this case by the Orphans’ Court of Washington County. There is a minor question arising on the pleadings and testimony, and that will be considered later. It is clear, we think, that the appellant has by law the right to letters of administration upon his brother’s estate if he is capable and qualified to discharge the trust.

There being neither widow, nor child, nor grandchild, nor father, in this case, brothers and sisters are designated by the provisions of the Code as the class entitled to administration. And the rule of preference, that males shall be preferred to females in equal degree of kin, is carefully laid down by the statute. In Carpenter v. Jones, 44 Md. 628 , this Court said: “But few cases can arise in this State, where the appointment of an administrator is within the discretion of the Orphans’ Court. The person entitled is generally designated by our statute, and when so designated the requirement of the statute must be strictly obeyed.” Nutz et al. v. Grove, 27 Md. 400 ; Kearney v. Turner, 28 Md. 423 ; McColgan, Admr., v. Kenny, 68 Md. 260 ; Georgetown College v. Brown, 34 Md. 455 .

In Cook v. Carr, 19 Md. 4 , the Court said: “In this case the appellant and Virginia Carr, although related to the decedent in equal degree, do not stand equal in right to the administration of her estate. The Code declares a preference of the male relative for administration over the female of the same degree of relationship which the