Emery v. Emery
Emery v. Emery
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the Court:
It is a contention on behalf of appellant that, the court having granted letters, had no power to revoke the same except for the causes provided in the Code. Those causes relate to matters of administration and connected therewith, and do not prevent the court from revoking letters which had been issued upon a mistaken assumption of facts.
It is well settled in Maryland, from whence our probate system is derived, that once letters have been granted to a party upon a misstatement or misconception of the facts, the same may be revoked and the party really entitled thereto appointed. Ward v. Thompson, 6 Gill & J. 350; Owings v. Bates, 9 Gill, 463; Wilcoxon v. Reese, 63 Md. 542; Dalrymple v. Gamble, 66 Md. 298—311, 7 Atl. 683, 8 Atl. 468; Wilkinson v. Robertson, 85 Md. 449, 37 Atl. 208.
The action of the court was without error in this case. There were no debts of the intestate, and by the terms of the Code her husband became entitled to the whole of her personal estate. The children had no interest therein.
The order is affirmed with costs. Affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- EMERY v. EMERY
- Cited By
- 4 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Administration, Revocation of Letters of; Distribution. 1. By see. 1160, D. C. Code, the husband of a woman dying intestate is entitled to administer her estate, and, after paying her debts, is entitled to all of her personal estate to the exclusion of her children. 2. Letters of administration granted to a party upon a misstatement or misconception of the facts may be revoked,. and the party really entitled thereto appointed administrator. 3. Where the probate court has granted letters of administration to the son of an intestate upon a petition by him reciting that the husband of the intestate has not been heard of for more than fifteen years, it properly revokes its order upon a subsequent petition by the husband, and grants letters to him.