[278]*278Henderson, J.,
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This appeal is from an order of the Orphans’ Court for Montgomery County, entered on April 4, 1956, revoking letters of administration that had been granted to the appellant on July 19, 1955, removing her as administratrix and directing that she state an account within fifteen days. The ground of removal was that a conflict of interest was shown to exist between the appellant, in her capacity of administratrix, and in her capacity as a claimant against the estate".
Louis E. Talbert died intestate on July 1, 1955, leaving a widow, the appellant, and two sisters as his next of kin. The appellant qualified as administratrix and filed a bond. It was shown in her petition that the decedent left personal property to the value of about $30,000, and an interest in a business known as Talbert’s Ice Service, the exact value of which was then unknown. Subsequently, an inventory was filed and an appraisal fixed the total value of the personal property at $41,249.41. Thereafter the ice business was sold at a price of $15,000, with the court’s approval. There was also a petition to assign four taxicabs at their appraised value, as a part of the widow’s statutory allowance, which was granted by the court. ' No objection was raised by the appellees, and it is not contended here that it was improper, although it is referred to in the appellees’ brief as one of the reasons they sought removal.
On January 13, 1956, the widow filed a claim, verified by affidavit in the form required by Code (1951), Art. 93, sec. 102, reading as follows: “* * * I hereby certify that on this day of January, 1956,' personally appeared before me Anna May Talbert, individually and as administratrix, and máde oath in due form of law that it does not appear from any book or writing of her decedent that any part of the aforesaid claim has been discharged, and that to the best of her knowledge and belief, no part of the said claim has been discharged and no security or satisfaction given for the same. * * *".
[279]*279On January 19, 1956, the two sisters, through counsel, filed an exception to the claim, alleging that a part of the claim for services was barred by limitations, and that the services were never rendered, or if rendered, not under any agreement, express or implied, to compensate the claimant. They demanded full proof of the claim. The claimant, through her attorney, filed a motion to strike the exception and demand for proof, alleging that the defense of limitations was not available to the exceptants, and that they were not entitled to call for full proof since that was a matter solely between the court and the administratrix. But before the matter came on for hearing the exceptants filed a petition to remove the administratrix, and after hearing upon the latter petition, the administratrix was removed. The sole question presented is whether the facts disclosed by the record, which are virtually undisputed, afford ground for the court’s action.
It is clear that the Orphans’ Court was entirely correct in appointing the surviving widow as administratrix in the first instance. Indeed, it was obligatory upon the court to do so in the absence of any showing of legal disqualification. Code (1951), Art. 93, sec. 22, provides that where there is no surviving child, the widow shall be preferred. The preference accorded to sisters under sec. 24, is only where there is no surviving husband, or widow, child, grandchild, father or mother. It is also clear that there is no statute in Maryland directing that when an administrator has a disputed claim against the estate, he is required to resign before action can be taken to enforce it, or providing that an administrator pendente lite be appointed to resist it. Sullivan v. Doyle, 193 Md. 421, 429. It was there pointed out that Code (1951), Art. 93, sec. 102, in effect authorizes the receiving of a claim, where the creditor is administrator, if the affidavit therein prescribed is made. Nor does the fact that a person is indebted to the estate disqualify him from acting as administrator. Dorsey v. Dorsey, 140 Md. 167.
It was also stated in the Sullivan case “that if any creditor, legatee or next of kin desires to resist the passage of such a claim, he may have issues sent to a court of law, or if the claim has been passed by the Orphans’ Court and his rights [280]*280are impaired thereby, he may appeal to the Court of Appeals. Bell v. Funk, 75 Md. 368, 372, 23 A. 958; Hayden v. Stevens, 179 Md. 16, 16 A. 2d 922.” See also Stevenson, et al. v. Schriver and Wife, 9 Gill & J. 324; Bantz v. Bantz, 52 Md. 686, 690; Watson v. Watson, 58 Md. 442; and Burrell v. Veanie, 203 Md. 407, 413. In the Hayden case it was recognized, however, that an administrator making claim against the estate is not acting at all in his representative character, and hence is not entitled to have a counsel fee charged against the estate. It was noted that in some states there are statutory requirements that the claim of an administrator be approved by a co-administrator appointed to conduct the defense, or that it be submitted to arbitrators. In other states, the administrator may be required to resign. See Note, 119 A. L. R. 306. In many states there is a statutory provision for the appointment of an administrator ad litem for the sole purpose of resisting the claim. See 2 Woerner, American Law of Administration (3rd Ed.), p. 1280. But all of the Maryland cases cited recognize that this is not true under the Maryland statutes and decisions. Of course, a person in his individual capacity cannot sue himself in his capacity of administrator, or vice versa. Owings v. Bates, 9 Gill 463, 466. Cf. Sullivan v. Doyle, supra, pp. 430, 431.
The appellees do not seriously contend that the mere filing of a claim by the administratrix is improper per se, or would justify her removal. Not only are the Maryland cases decisive on the point but it has been recognized that the right to administer is a valuable right. A holding that the mere filing of a claim would disqualify an administrator and require his removal would put an administrator to an election between foregoing his claim and his right to administer, which would work a hardship in some cases. Moreover, Code (1951), Art. 93, sec. 33, recognizes that a creditor may be entitled to letters of administration in the absence of blood relations, indicating that an adverse interest is not in itself deemed a disqualification.
The appellees contend, however, that removal can be justified because the administratrix, in her motion to strike the exception to the claim, has denied their right to full proof and [281]*281their right to plead limitations to a part of the claim. The mere assertion, through counsel, of a right to payment without full proof could hardly be considered an act of misfeasance, even though it is perfectly dear that the position is untenable. The cases cited recognize a right to full proof under circumstances like those in the instant case. See also Stump v. Stump, 91 Md. 699, 705.
On the point of limitations, Code (1951), Art. 93, sec.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[278]*278Henderson, J.,
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This appeal is from an order of the Orphans’ Court for Montgomery County, entered on April 4, 1956, revoking letters of administration that had been granted to the appellant on July 19, 1955, removing her as administratrix and directing that she state an account within fifteen days. The ground of removal was that a conflict of interest was shown to exist between the appellant, in her capacity of administratrix, and in her capacity as a claimant against the estate".
Louis E. Talbert died intestate on July 1, 1955, leaving a widow, the appellant, and two sisters as his next of kin. The appellant qualified as administratrix and filed a bond. It was shown in her petition that the decedent left personal property to the value of about $30,000, and an interest in a business known as Talbert’s Ice Service, the exact value of which was then unknown. Subsequently, an inventory was filed and an appraisal fixed the total value of the personal property at $41,249.41. Thereafter the ice business was sold at a price of $15,000, with the court’s approval. There was also a petition to assign four taxicabs at their appraised value, as a part of the widow’s statutory allowance, which was granted by the court. ' No objection was raised by the appellees, and it is not contended here that it was improper, although it is referred to in the appellees’ brief as one of the reasons they sought removal.
On January 13, 1956, the widow filed a claim, verified by affidavit in the form required by Code (1951), Art. 93, sec. 102, reading as follows: “* * * I hereby certify that on this day of January, 1956,' personally appeared before me Anna May Talbert, individually and as administratrix, and máde oath in due form of law that it does not appear from any book or writing of her decedent that any part of the aforesaid claim has been discharged, and that to the best of her knowledge and belief, no part of the said claim has been discharged and no security or satisfaction given for the same. * * *".
[279]*279On January 19, 1956, the two sisters, through counsel, filed an exception to the claim, alleging that a part of the claim for services was barred by limitations, and that the services were never rendered, or if rendered, not under any agreement, express or implied, to compensate the claimant. They demanded full proof of the claim. The claimant, through her attorney, filed a motion to strike the exception and demand for proof, alleging that the defense of limitations was not available to the exceptants, and that they were not entitled to call for full proof since that was a matter solely between the court and the administratrix. But before the matter came on for hearing the exceptants filed a petition to remove the administratrix, and after hearing upon the latter petition, the administratrix was removed. The sole question presented is whether the facts disclosed by the record, which are virtually undisputed, afford ground for the court’s action.
It is clear that the Orphans’ Court was entirely correct in appointing the surviving widow as administratrix in the first instance. Indeed, it was obligatory upon the court to do so in the absence of any showing of legal disqualification. Code (1951), Art. 93, sec. 22, provides that where there is no surviving child, the widow shall be preferred. The preference accorded to sisters under sec. 24, is only where there is no surviving husband, or widow, child, grandchild, father or mother. It is also clear that there is no statute in Maryland directing that when an administrator has a disputed claim against the estate, he is required to resign before action can be taken to enforce it, or providing that an administrator pendente lite be appointed to resist it. Sullivan v. Doyle, 193 Md. 421, 429. It was there pointed out that Code (1951), Art. 93, sec. 102, in effect authorizes the receiving of a claim, where the creditor is administrator, if the affidavit therein prescribed is made. Nor does the fact that a person is indebted to the estate disqualify him from acting as administrator. Dorsey v. Dorsey, 140 Md. 167.
It was also stated in the Sullivan case “that if any creditor, legatee or next of kin desires to resist the passage of such a claim, he may have issues sent to a court of law, or if the claim has been passed by the Orphans’ Court and his rights [280]*280are impaired thereby, he may appeal to the Court of Appeals. Bell v. Funk, 75 Md. 368, 372, 23 A. 958; Hayden v. Stevens, 179 Md. 16, 16 A. 2d 922.” See also Stevenson, et al. v. Schriver and Wife, 9 Gill & J. 324; Bantz v. Bantz, 52 Md. 686, 690; Watson v. Watson, 58 Md. 442; and Burrell v. Veanie, 203 Md. 407, 413. In the Hayden case it was recognized, however, that an administrator making claim against the estate is not acting at all in his representative character, and hence is not entitled to have a counsel fee charged against the estate. It was noted that in some states there are statutory requirements that the claim of an administrator be approved by a co-administrator appointed to conduct the defense, or that it be submitted to arbitrators. In other states, the administrator may be required to resign. See Note, 119 A. L. R. 306. In many states there is a statutory provision for the appointment of an administrator ad litem for the sole purpose of resisting the claim. See 2 Woerner, American Law of Administration (3rd Ed.), p. 1280. But all of the Maryland cases cited recognize that this is not true under the Maryland statutes and decisions. Of course, a person in his individual capacity cannot sue himself in his capacity of administrator, or vice versa. Owings v. Bates, 9 Gill 463, 466. Cf. Sullivan v. Doyle, supra, pp. 430, 431.
The appellees do not seriously contend that the mere filing of a claim by the administratrix is improper per se, or would justify her removal. Not only are the Maryland cases decisive on the point but it has been recognized that the right to administer is a valuable right. A holding that the mere filing of a claim would disqualify an administrator and require his removal would put an administrator to an election between foregoing his claim and his right to administer, which would work a hardship in some cases. Moreover, Code (1951), Art. 93, sec. 33, recognizes that a creditor may be entitled to letters of administration in the absence of blood relations, indicating that an adverse interest is not in itself deemed a disqualification.
The appellees contend, however, that removal can be justified because the administratrix, in her motion to strike the exception to the claim, has denied their right to full proof and [281]*281their right to plead limitations to a part of the claim. The mere assertion, through counsel, of a right to payment without full proof could hardly be considered an act of misfeasance, even though it is perfectly dear that the position is untenable. The cases cited recognize a right to full proof under circumstances like those in the instant case. See also Stump v. Stump, 91 Md. 699, 705.
On the point of limitations, Code (1951), Art. 93, sec. 105, provides that an administrator is not required to avail himself of a defense of limitations “to bar what he supposes to be a just claim, but the same shall be left to his honesty and discretion.” This section is not strictly applicable because the administratrix and the claimant are the same person, and she is simply not in a position to resist her own claim on any ground. It has been held that since an administrator cannot sue himself, limitations do not run while he occupies the dual position. Semmes v. Magruder, 10 Md. 242. It has also been squarely held that where issues are sent to a court of law, limitations cannot be raised either by legatees or by a co-executor. Yingling v. Hesson, 16 Md. 112, 120. There the Court said: “The object appears to have been to present lapse of time as a legal bar to the demand, as effectually as if pleaded in an action at law. But the law is well settled that this cannot be done in the Orphans’ Court, though it may look to the fact of such bar, as evidence to be weighed with all other testimony in relation to any claim, in determining on its justice. Bowling v. Lamar, 1 Gill, 360. As the jury is substituted in aid of the court to ascertain the facts, and the proceeding is to be considered all the while as within the probate powers of the Orphans’ Court, (State v. Reigart, 1 Gill, 29. Warjord v. Colvin, 14 Md. 532), the court of law, to which the issues may be sent, must decide on the same principles and rules that govern the Orphans’ Court. Hence, whatever benefit the appellants could have from a reliance on lapse of time in the Orphans’ Court, they may avail themselves of when the issues are tried at law, which involve the existence, legality and justice of the claim.” Cf. Long v. Long, 118 Md. 198, 201. It was also held that the party propounding the claim should appear as plaintiff in the trial of the issues, and has [282]*282the burden of proof. Cf. Stump v. Stump, supra. One of the problems of proof facing the claimant would seem to be the Evidence Act, Code (1951), Art. 35, sec. 3.
It is suggested that an administrator making claim against an estate is placed in a more favorable position than a third party claimant, because in the latter case the administrator may, in the exercise of his sound discretion, refuse payment and force such claimant to bring an action at law within nine months, under Code (1951), Art. 93, secs. 114, 115. If an action is brought, the administrator may also, in the exercise of his sound discretion, plead limitations. Neither of these actions could be taken by an administrator against his own claim, since he could not be expected to find his own claim to be unjust, and he cannot sue himself, or plead in such an action. But this appears to be the logical and necessary consequence of the rule permitting an administrator to file a claim. Since he has a legal right to do so, the fact that he is then unable to raise a defense of limitations against his own claim furnishes no ground, we think, for his removal. It is well settled that an administrator cannot be removed except for legal and specific causes. Fulford v. Fulford, 153 Md. 81; Schaumloeffel v. Schaumloeffel, 186 Md. 280. There are instances where administrators have been removed for concealment, fraud or misfeasance in office. But here the administratrix is only asserting a claim she is legally entitled to make under the authorities cited. We think the Orphans’ Court was not justified in ordering her removal under the circumstances. A like conclusion was reached by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in Perkins v. Berger, 145 F. 2d 856, construing statutes borrowed largely from Maryland.
What we have said relates particularly to the claims for services rendered and moneys advanced during the lifetime of the decedent. We note, however, that there is another claim for services rendered “in connection with the ice and taxicab business — since the death of the deceased — * * None of the claims have yet been passed on by the Orphans’ Court, but since the matter will be before the court on remand, either directly or with the aid of issues framed, we [283]*283think it appropriate to observe that the claim for services rendered since the death of the deceased, and principally during the period of administration, stands on a different footing. In effect, the claim is for an allowance by the court for services rendered the estate. It has been said that carrying on a business is beyond the function of an administrator’s office. Willinger v. German Bk. of Balto., 132 Md. 237, 241. On the other hand, reimbursement for the reasonable expense of preserving assets has been held proper under some circumstances. Bantz v. Bantz, supra, p. 696. Cf. Code (1951), Art. 93, sec. 5. Of course, the allowance of commissions is designed to compensate an administrator for all of the ordinary work of administering. The Orphans’ Court should deal with this claim in the light of the authorities cited.
Order reversed, with costs, and case remanded for further proceedings.