Gray v. Rideout

57 A.2d 778, 190 Md. 204, 1948 Md. LEXIS 269
CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland
DecidedMarch 19, 1948
Docket[No. 115, October Term, 1947]
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 57 A.2d 778 (Gray v. Rideout) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gray v. Rideout, 57 A.2d 778, 190 Md. 204, 1948 Md. LEXIS 269 (Md. 1948).

Opinion

Marbury, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Pursuant to the provisions of the Annotated Code, Article 93, Section 151, the Orphans Court of Baltimore City notified all persons claiming as distributees of Mary Belle Davis, deceased, intestate, to appear, file and establish their claims. Testimony was taken at a number of hearings, and after a lapse of nearly 10 months an order was passed by two of the judges hearing the case (the third meanwhile having retired) awarding the entire net estate to the administrator of the claimant, Lewis T. Jones, who had died after the hearings, but before the decision. This order, from which the two appeals here are taken, was based upon a finding that Jones was the only first cousin of the decedent and the nearest of kin.

One appeal is by the administratrix of Mary Lyles Potts, who also died during the progress of the case, and who also claimed to be a first cousin. The other appeal is by 10 grandchildren of Hannah Bowie, who was an aunt of the decedent on the maternal side. These Bowie descendants are, therefore, first cousins once removed, (sometimes called second cousins) of the decedent, and can take only if there are no first cousins (Code, art. 93, Sec. 138). Their relationship is established by the testimony, and is not contested, although not admitted. The first inquiry, therefore, is whether either Jones or Potts or both, were first cousins. If either appears to bear that relationship to the decedent, the Bowie descendants do not inherit. If neither are first cousins, the Bowie descendants will inherit, either the entire estate, or will share with other relatives of-equal degree, if there are any.

*207 The decedent was an aged colored woman who was never married. Her parents and her brothers predeceased her, the brothers dying unmarried and without descendants. She was born in Montgomery County, near Damascus, and was the daughter of Benjamin Davis and Harriet Davis. She had lived in Baltimore for at least 35 years before her death, at which time she was between 75 and 80 years of age. Her estate was variously estimated at from $15,000 to $20,000.' These facts are conceded by all parties.

The Potts claim is based upon the supposed relationship of the father of the claimant to the mother of decedent. This father is said to be William Lyles, claimed to be the brother of Harriet Davis. This claim is, therefore, on the maternal side, and the claimant, if correct in her statement of her pedigree, would be a first cousin of the parents of the Bowie grandchildren. She and most of the grandchildren lived in Montgomery County, and much of the testimony as to both claims is given by residents of that county. Many of the witnesses are old, and their recollections are not too clear in important particulars.

Mary Lyles Potts was said to be nearly 85 years of age when the testimony was taken. Among the witnesses who testified to her parentage was Bertha Ziegler, a daughter of George Lyles, deceased, who was her brother. She said that her grandfather, William Lyles was the only brother of Harriet Davis. She had never seen her grandfather who died many years ago. Mary Potts’ mother was Lydia. Lydia was buried in the church cemetery at Damascus. William Lyles was buried at Purdon. George Lyles, the father of witness would be 89 years old if he were living. Another witness was Albert Gray, 67 years old, who lived in Montgomery County. He knew George Lyles, and his mother Lydia, but never knew William Lyles. He was a cousin of the decedent on the paternal side, but was no relation to William or George Lyles. He knew George’s sister, Mary Lyles Potts. Lydia Donnally, afterwards named admin *208 istratrix of Mary Potts, was 56 years old. She was George Lyles’ daughter, and testified that his father was William Lyles, and that Mary Lyles Potts was William’s daughter and George’s sister. She also said she knew Benjamin Davis, the father of decedent, during his lifetime, and also his wife, Harriet. Her grandfather died before she was born. Maude Lyles Gray Wilson, now1 living in New York City, was born in Damascus where she lived until she was about 20 years old. She was also a daughter of George Lyles, who was, she testified, a first cousin of Mary Belle Davis, the decedent. She said her aunt, Mary Potts, was about 75 years old. Her father often spoke to her of her grandfather, William Lyles. He was a brother of Mary Belle Davis’s mother, Harriet. George Gray lived in Montgomery County and said he was 77 years old. He knew Mary Potts, who was about his age, and he formerly knew her mother “Liz” Lyles. Her father was dead before the witness went to Damascus to live,'which was when he was a boy eight years old. Mary Potts was George Lyles’ sister. These witnesses were not claimants, and those who were children of George Lyles were testifying somewhat against their own interest when they said that Mary Potts was a sister of their father, although to support any right of theirs as first cousins once removed, they would have to prove William Lyles was an uncle of decedent. However, they none of them made any claim, and all supported the claim of Mary Potts. They did, however, have a prospect (since realized) of succeeding to Mary Potts’ claim as her next of kin.

Bessie Washington, a granddaughter of Harriet Bowie and one of the appellants, said that George Lyles and Mary Potts, both of who she knew, were brother and sister, and that Dorothy Ziegler, Lydia Donnally and Maude Gray were George’s children. She knew decedent and had heard her say that Mary Potts was her cousin. This witness said Mary Potts was her second cousin on her mother’s side, and was the child of Bill Lyles, who was supposed to be Hannah Bowie’s brother. Her *209 mother had told her this. Roberta Crampton, another of the Bowie grandchildren, said she lived at one time with the decedent who was her mother’s first cousin. Her grandmother, Hannah Lyles Bowie, was supposed to be a sister to Bill Lyles. Bill Lyles was the brother of Harriet Davis. Marshall Halsey, another one of the Bowie grandchildren, had heard of Bill Lyles, but had never seen him. His mother used to call him Uncle Bill Lyles, and said he was her mother’s brother. He knew George Lyles, who was related on the mother’s side. Called him Cousin George. Bill Lyles was supposed to be his father. Bill Lyles was buried before the time of this witness. These three last named witnesses, when they gave the testimony recited above, were clearly testifying against their own interest and their claims as first cousins once removed.

John Wesley Taylor, not a party to these appeals, but who claimed to be a cousin of decedent on her mother’s side through his grandfather, and who would be a first cousin once removed if he established his contention, said that Mary Potts was a first cousin of decedent. This was also testimony against the interest of the witness.

Beatrice Sobers, a granddaughter of George Lyles, testified that Mary Potts was her great-aunt. She was informed by her father that Mary Potts was a sister of George Lyles. Nellie Gray, another granddaughter of George Lyles, said the decedent, whom she saw frequently, told her that George Lyles was her first cousin. She visited him and gave him money because he was paralyzed a good while before he died. Theodore Phillips, a great grandson of Hannah Bowie, said the decedent used to visit his mother, who was her second cousin, 25 or 30 years ago.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Lusby v. State
141 A.2d 893 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1958)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
57 A.2d 778, 190 Md. 204, 1948 Md. LEXIS 269, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gray-v-rideout-md-1948.