Hamilton v. Doherty

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Baltimore City. In August, 1885, Sarah E. Alcorn, then about eighty years of age, was taken by the appellant, who was her nephew, to his home from the residence of Mrs. Reid with whom she had lived many years, “for company,” as he alleged, and to be “ free from any charge for board.” She continued to reside with the appellant from that time until her death, which occurred in November, 1891. During her residence with him, the appellant obtained possession of her entire property and estate, consisting of “ cash, securities and investments.” On October 13, 1892, letters of administration pendente lite on her estate were granted to the appellees, who demanded of the appellant an account of the money and other property which he had acquired from Sarah E. Alcorn, from the time she was taken to his home, in 1885, to the date of her death. Such account or statement he refused to render, and claimed the entire estate as his own. Thereupon the appellees filed their bill of complaint against the appellant for an account of all moneys, &c., received by him from or for the use of the said Sarah E. Alcorn, alleging that the means by which he obtained them were against equity, and that the said Sarah was, at the time of the making of certain alleged written agreement between her and the appellant, and for sometime previously, of unsound mind and incapable of making a valid deed or contract. The appellant answered this bill, denying the substantial averments thereof, and after much testimony had been taken, the Court, on the 7th February, 1895, passed a decree requiring him to bring into Court within fifteen days the sum of $5,159; and referring the proceedings to the auditor to state an account, in which the appellant should be charged with the above named sum and the interest thereon, and should be “ credited with such sums as he had paid to Sarah E. Alcorn, and such sums as may be fairly and justly chargeable for her maintenance, and incurred for her funeral expenses.” No appeal was taken from this decree, and it was conceded in the argument that the single question presented for consideration in this appeal was as to the adequacy of the allowance made by the auditor to the appellant of the sum of $1,540, for board, care and lodging of Sarah E. Alcorn from August, 1885, to December, 1891, 27 months, at $20.00 per month.” Held, that the allowance made by the auditor to the appellant for the board and lodging of the appellee’s intestate was amply sufficient compensation.