Stump v. Stump

Fowler, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Elizabeth G. Stump died leaving a will which was duly ⁷⁰³ admitted to probate in the Orphans’ Court of Baltimore County. She devised and bequeathed all her estate and property to her five children as tenants in common, equally. Her son, William G. H. Stump, was named as executor, and letters testamentary were duly issued to him.

Some months thereafter he exhibited to the Orphans’ Court an account against his mother’s estate for an alleged indebtedness amounting, with interest, to over fourteen thousand dollars. This account was accompanied with certain affidavits, and was passed in the usual manner, ex-parte, by the Orphans’ Court. Within a few days after the passage of this account the brother and sisters of the executor, filed in that Court a petition charging that said account is incorrect and erroneous and asking for the passage of an order rescinding the allowance of the claim, and requiring it to be established in a plenary proceeding and by full and satisfactory proof. It was so ordered, and the executor was required to establish his claim against the estate of his mother by full proof in a plenary proceeding upon bill or petition, he occupying the position of plaintiff and the other devisees and legatees were required to answer under oath as defendants.

Leave was also allowed to either party to apply for issues to be sent to a Court of Law. The order just mentioned was passed on the 20th June, 1899, and on the 1 ith July following the foregoing order was rescinded and in lieu thereof it was ordered that the order of June 7th passing said claim be rescinded, unless cause to the contrary be shown by the claimant on or before the 9th of August, provided a copy of the order should be served on himself or his attorney before the 1st of August. On the day last named, instead of showing cause, as required by the order of the nth July, why the order of June 7th passing his account should not be rescinded, he filed an answer under oath, setting up the merits of his claim, but failing to show any cause why the ex-parte order passing his claim should not be rescinded, or why his claim should not be established by full and satisfactory proof. It will be observed that this order does ⁷⁰⁴ not require that the other parties shall be notified of its passage.

It only required that a copy should be served on the claimant. He alone appears to have had any notice of it. The next step in the proceedings is a petition filed February 6th, 1900, by the devisees who were opposing the claim in question, by which they asked that the claimant’s answer to their original petition be stricken out because it is not responsive, and praying that the original order allowing the claim be rescinded, and that the claimant b erequired to establish his claim by legal proof. The matter of this petition was set for hearing on a day named, and after hearing argument from both sides the Court passed an order striking out the two answers filed by the claimant, because not responsive, rescinding the ex-parte allowance of the claim, and setting the question of its allowance or rejection for hearing on the 10th of April, 1900, requiring both sides on that day to produce before the Court such proof by witnesses or other legal evidence as they may desire to support their respective contentions, “ so that the question of the allowance or rejection of said claim * * * may be finally decided.” From this order the claimant, William G. H.