Shafer v. Shafer
Citations
- 85 Md. 554
- 37 A. 167
- 1897 Md. LEXIS 58
Syllabus
<p>Executors and Administrators — Reopening Accounts — Improper Allowance of Claim — Burden of Proof — Releases to Executor— Debts Returned as Desperate.</p> <p>After a claim of an executor against the estate was passed by the Orphans’ Court, paid to himself by the executor, and an account in which it was allowed was also passed, the legatees disputed the correctness of the claim and petitioned the Court to reopen the account and reject the same. Held, that the burden of proof was upon the petitioners to show that the claim was improperly allowed, and that the executor need offer no further evidence to sustain it.</p> <p>An executor stated an administration account in which certain claims of his own against the estate were allowed, after having been passed by the Orphans’ Court and paid. Distribution was made after notice to the legatees to be present in Court, under Code, Art. 93, secs. 138, etc. At that time the account so stated was open to inspection and the legatees upon receipt of the amounts audited to them, executed releases under seal to the executor in which they discharged him from all claims on account of said settlement. Afterwards some of the legatees petitioned the Orphans’ Court to reopen the account and reject the claims of the executor against the estate, alleging that they did not know that such claims were allowed in the account and that the same were not just debts. No evidence was offered by the petitioners to show that the claims were not valid. Held, that under these circumstances the releases executed by the petitioners are a bar to their obtaining the relief asked for.</p> <p>The Orphans’ Court is without jurisdiction to determine the validity of releases made to an executor by distributees of the estate, upon the payment to them of the amounts stated in a distribution account.</p> <p>Where an executor has returned a debt due the estate as “ desperate,” the Orphans’ Court cannot order that the debt be returned collect ible and charged again
Judges: Boyd, Briscoe, Bryan, Fowler, McSherry, Roberts, Russum
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
2 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Spitze v. Baltimore & Ohio RailroadCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1892-01-14· cited 56×
- Edelen v. EdelenCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1857-12-15· cited 30×
- Scott v. FoxCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1859-07-29· cited 20×
- Michael v. BakerCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1858-06-22· cited 15×
- Townshend v. BrookeCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1850-06-15· cited 14×
- Owens v. CollinsonCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1830-12-15· cited 13×
- Williams v. HolmesCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1856-12-15· cited 12×
- Lowe v. LoweCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1854-12-15· cited 11×
- Norment v. BrydonCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1876-03-02· cited 10×
- Ruby v. State ex rel. VernayCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1881-02-18· cited 6×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.