Temple v. Bradley

Briscoe, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Queen Anne’s County, in equity, dated the 14th day of May, 1912, ratifying in part and rejecting in part, an audit distributing the proceeds of sale, of certain real estate of Sarah J. Bradley, late of Queen Anne’s County, deceased. ⁶⁰⁴ The principal questions in the case arise upon exceptions to that part of the audit distributing the sum of six thousand, eight hundred and sixty-seven dollars and sixty-seven cents, the surplus proceeds of the sale of the real estate to the devisees, their representatives and creditors. The exceptions are based upon the ground that several children of Mrs. Bradley had received advances from their mother, in her lifetime, which under her will, should be deducted from the distributive share awarded them in the audit, but which the auditor refused to allow in the account submitted for ratification. The Court below ratified and confirmed the audit, in so far as it relates to the payment of trustees commissions, costs, and the claims of creditors of Mrs. Bradley, but rejected that in which the surplus proceeds of sale were distributed to the devisees, their representatives and creditors.

The case was remanded for a new audit, with directions among other things “that from the amounts allotted the sons of Mrs. Bradley respectively, should be deducted the charges and-advancements against them so that the audit will show what each of them will receive.” Mrs. Bradley departed this life, in the year 1904, leaving a last will and testament which was duly admitted to probate by the Orphans’ Court of Queen Anne’s County. By the fourth clause of her will she provided “I will and direct that the several amounts with which I have or may hereafter charge my children, as will be found amongst my boohs and papers shall become a part of my personal estate and shall be returned as sperate debts by my executors and in the final settlement and distribution of my estate, the amount so found charged and returned by my executors, not including interest, shall be deducted from the share of each child which may be so charged as above stated.” By the terms of her will the real estate in question was devised to her husband for and during his natural life, and after his death, it was to be sold and the proceeds of sale. ⁶⁰⁵ after the payment of her just debts, were to be distributed equally amongst her six sons, and two daughters, and their descendants, the child or children of any deceased child, to take the deceased parents share. The real estate of which Mrs. Bradley died seized and possessed, was sold under a decree passed by the Circuit Court of Queen Anne’s County, dated the 18th day of Au-. gust, 1909, at the suit of her creditors, for the purpose of paying her debts. The property sold for the sum of ten thousand and seven hundred dollars and the surplus proceeds of sale, as will appear, were distributed to her children and grandchildren, and the attaching judgment creditor of a deceased son, in due proportions.

Charles E. Bradley, the husband, died in 1910. Charles H. Bradley and William A. Bradley, two of the sons died in the lifetime of their mother. The exceptants in the Court below are Ann Maria Erank, one of the daughters and Stephen E. Bradley, a son of the testatrix. The appellants, on this record, are John E. Bradley, a son, and W. Hubert Temple, administrator of J. Erank Temple, an attaching creditor of Walter J. Bradley.

The contention of the parties it will be seen are presented upon the exceptions to the admissibility of testimony taken before the auditor, and specially to the introduction in evidence of “Exceptants’ Exhibit B,” the alleged book containing the charges and advances to the sons in the lifetime of the testatrix and the book claimed to be referred to, by the testatrix in the fourth clause of her will. It is contended by the appellees, that if the testimony is sufficient to establish the identity of the book, “Exceptants’ Exhibit B,” as the book referred to by the testatrix, in the fourth item of the will, and is otherwise admissible for the purposes of their case, that the Court below committed no error, in directing the charges to be deducted from the share, of each child, so charged against them. A large amount of testimony was taken in the ease, and many exceptions and objections were made to the questions ⁶⁰⁶ and the answers, the greater portion of which related to the competency of the witnesses to testify in the case, and to that part of the testimony which identifies the hook containing the charges against Mrs. Bradley’s children. We have carefully examined all of the exceptions and without discussing each of them, we think, there is sufficient competent testimony properly admitted to support the exceptants’ objections to the audit, even if we were to hold that some of the appellants’ objections should be sustained and the testimony excluded.

This would not in any way affect the conclusion we have reached upon the whole testimony now before us. We concur in the opinion of the Court below that the