Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1900-05-24
PRITGHARD VS.. HENDERSON.
Ejectment Case Argued Before the Cour
in Banc-An Informant Question.

Ejectment Case Argued Before the Court
In Banc-An Informant Question.
In the ejectment case of John Doe,
on the demise OF John Pritchard VS..
Richard Roe, casual eiector and Henry
Henderson, tenant in possession, which
was put on argument Def )Te the Court
in Banc in this city Friday, involves
the important question of whether the
Delaware court IS bound by the action
of the Maryland court in the matter of
the will Of Caroline @. Pritchard. This
statement Of the case is taken from the
plaintiffs notes:
Mrs. Pritchard's domicile was Mary
land when she died in February, 1896.
The executor named iE her alleged will
propounded the paper for probate In
the Orphans Court OF Cecil county in
that State, and the same was admitted
to probate in common form, without
contest. After wards, John Pritchard,
the plaintiff here, filed caveat. and
issues were framed in the Orphans
Court and sent to tho Circuit Court for
Cecil county for trial before jury.
These issues were tried before Jury
in the Circuit Court for Hartford
county, to which they bad been re-
moved.
The jury found I'D issue) that the
alleged will had been executed by Mrs.
Pritchard, AND attested 10 due form of
law. But they found also, a. that
Mrs. Pritchard was OF unsound mind
(2l, that she did not understand the
contents Of said paper; t3), that the
said alleged will was procured by the
undue influence of Henry Henderson
1.-THE defendant here). and az, that the
execution of said alleged will was
procured by the fraud OF said Henry
Henderson
Upon these findings of The jury being
certified to the Orphans Court, that
court passed an order annulling the
probate which had been granted in
common form and without contest, and
declaring that said paper was not in
fact and in truth the last will of Mrs.
Pritchard.
Mrs. Pritchard was possessed OF con-
siderable personal property, and was
seized OF real estate both In Maryland
and in Delaware.
Both plaintiff and defendant are
Mrs. Pritohafd's only surviving chill
dren.
The alleged will gave the defendant,
Horny Henderson, oil her property,
real and personal.
The question fer decision on the case
stated is, whether said probate proceed
ings in the Maryland courts on the
caveat to Mrs Pritohards will, will
estop the defendnnt, the said Henry
Henderson, from claiming in this action
in Delaware that said paper is Mrs.
Pritchard's valid last win.
A lbert Constable and Anthony Hig-
gins, for John Pritchard, held that
under the Maryland Statutes Henry
Henderson was party by representa-
tion to the Maryland probate action,
and is bound by the findings of fact
made by the Jury SO far as they are
material here.
They said that the jury in the Mary
land court found as fact that the will
under which Henry Henderson, the de-
PENDANT, claims tho land in this eject
ment, was procured by his own fraud.
They hold also that he "cannot con-
trovert in this eieotment the fact, de-
cided in the Maryland cavent to which
he was party, that this alleged will
was procured by his fraud.''
j. Harvey Whiteman and Charles 3.
Evans. for Henderson, held that the
Delaware court is not buund by the
action of the Maryland court.
| Cards have been issued for the we'd