Seekamp's Adm'r. v. Hammer
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appear from the Orphans Court of Baltimore county. The only question in the ease was, whether or not, in the distribution of the personal estate of a deceased intestate, under the act of 1798, ch. 101, among brothers and sisters, the half blood were entitled to share with the whole blood; or that the same was to be distributed among the whole blood, to the exclusion, of the half blood? It appears by tbe peiition filed by G. Hammer, and Caroline his wife, (the appellees,)…
Read the full summary
Appear from the Orphans Court of Baltimore county. The only question in the ease was, whether or not, in the distribution of the personal estate of a deceased intestate, under the act of 1798, ch. 101, among brothers and sisters, the half blood were entitled to share with the whole blood; or that the same was to be distributed among the whole blood, to the exclusion, of the half blood? It appears by tbe peiition filed by G. Hammer, and Caroline his wife, (the appellees,) against Frederick JO. E. Amelung, administrator of Albertine C. Seekamp, (the appellant,) anil the answer of the said…
1Opinion of the Court
The Court.
The expressions, “and there shall be no distinction between the whole and half blood,” in the 11th section of the 11th sub chapter of the act of 1798, ch. 101, run through the whole of that sub chapter, and include the whole and the half blood. The court do not think there is any am-, biguily in that part of the act.
DECREE AFFIRMED,
2Cited by1 opinion
- Thomas v. MarriottCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1928