Wrightson v. Tydings

Fowler, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. By his will the late Francis A. Wrightson, of Talbot County, Maryland, devised and bequeathed to his children all his estate real, personal and mixed to be divided among them equally. He provided, however, that any evidences of indebtedness which he might have against any of his children at the time ³⁵⁹ of his death should be chargeable against their interests in his estate. The appellants, Charles T. Wrightson and Albert Lowe, the former being the son and the latter the son-in-law, of the testator, were named in the will as executors.

They duly qualified as such and passed their first account charging themselves with a balance in hand of #1,331.50. This account does not appear in the record but the balance as shown by that accouut is the first item with which the executors charge themselves in their second account, which they filed on the 13th August, 1901. They also charged themselves in this second account with the following amounts, viz : Amounts sales leasehold property...... 5,906 Less mortgage on same............. 5,ooo 900 900 Amt. debts sperate . . . '.......... 2,305 95 Adding bal. from first acct........... 1,331 50 Making total in hands of executors .... #4,537 45 After crediting the various payments made by them there remained in their hands a net balance of #559.68. Together with their second administration account, the executors also filed an inventory of sperate debts amounting to the sum of #2,305.95 with which, as we have seen, they duly charged themselves, and at the same time they filed a distribution account, distributing the whole balance, amounting to #559.65 to Mrs. Tydings, one of the distributees, in order to equalize her interest in the estate with the other legatees.

With their account they filed a report or petition asking their account and the distribution account to be approved and also giving several reasons why certain claims must be regarded uncollectible and worthless. The Orphans’ Court, however, without any evidence whatever, so far as the record discloses, except the recital in their order of August 13, 1901, passed an order dismissing the petition of the administrators and directed them to state and file another inventory of debts and another administration account in which they were required to return as “sperate,” and charge themselves with, over ³⁶⁰ $40,000 of debts which they had already reported to the Court were wholly or largely uncollectible, as the persons owing them were in most cases insolvent, and that said debts were barred by limitations and otherwise disputed. It appears that in obedience to the requirements of this order of August 13th the executors filed an inventory and account. By the former it appears that “ sperate ” debts due the estate amounted to the sum of $45,812.79 including of course the $2,305.00 of debts admitted by the executors to be “ sperate,” and which they had so reported when they filed their first inventory.

By the account thus filed, as required by the order of Court, it appears that after paying all debts due by the estate, there remained a balance of $40,016.16-in the hands of the executors for distribution. The amount of commissions allowed in the account the Court below required to be passed is $2,088.64, being eight per cent on $20,000; and two per cent on $24,432.14. In other words, by requiring the alleged uncollectible or “ desperate ” debts to be included in and accounted for as part of the estate the