The Baltimore County union. [volume] (Towsontown, Md.) 1865-1909, 1900-05-05

The object. of this suit is to procure the APP
pontment of a receiver to take charge of the
real estate of the late Michael Duffy, situated in
in Baltimore county, and receive the rents.
profits and issues thereof under the direction of
the Court, and for an injunction restraining
Joseph Duffy, Ella Duffy, his wife, Michael
Duffy, Jr., Mary Prospect, and James Prospect,
her husband, and each of them and the agents
and servants of each of them, from interfering
or meddling with the said real estate and the
management and the control of the same.
The bill states that Michael Duffy, late of Bal
timore county, State of Maryland, died on or
about February 18th, 1900. ntestate, leaving sur
viviug him a widow, Celinna c. Duffy, and the
following children who are his heirs at law, to
wit: John |. Duffy, Monica Duffy, infant !;
is the wife of John S. Nelson, of Baltimore city |;
Mary Prospect, formerly Mary Duffy, who mar
ried James Prospect both of whom are non-resi-
Pennsylvania Michael Duffy Jr., Joseph DUFFY,
who married Ella Duffy, his wife of Baltimore
county. the said Mary Prospect, Michael Duffy,
Jr., and Joseph Duffy. being children by for
mer deceased wife of said Michael Duffy, and
not children OF his last wife, Celinda c. Duffy (;
that at the time of his death the said Michael
Duffy was seized and possessed OF large ana
valuable real estate, situated near Mt. Washing
ton, in said county, containing in the aggregate
II acres. l rood and 16 perches of land, more or
necessary outbuidiDgs; that the said Michael
Duffy died in the said dwelling house on the
farm, being the said real estate, and that at the
time of his death the said Joseph Duffy and Ella
Duffy, his wife, and their children, and said
Michael Duffy, Jr., had been and are now re-
siding in said dwelling house on said farm ; that
John NJ. Littig, Esq, on the 9th day of March,
1900. produced before the Orphans Court of Bal
timore county paper writing purporting to be
Duffy, for probate. but said alleged will was not
admitted to probate by said Court, and that said
John John / pMIify, Monica s puffy Thomas F. Dptiy.
band, have filed a caveat to said alleged will OBJ
jecting to the probate of the same, alleging that
the said paper writing was not duly executed
and attested; that it was not executed by said
Michael Duffy when he was of sound mind and
capable of executing valid deed or contract.
and that the same was procured by undue in
fluence exercised and practiced on the said
Michael Duffy and the paper writing afOre-
said was not admitted to probate as the last will
of Michael Duffy, but on said caveat issues were
framed by the Orphans Court of said county
and sent to the Circuit Court for Baltimore
county for trial, and the controversy over the
same is now pending and it will be a long time
before said contention is terminated that the
said paper writing is not in fact the will of the
said Michael Duffy, and that it can or ought not
to have any force, validity or effect as such will
that in view of said controversy, which may be
indefinitely protracted. and the fact that the
said farm and real estate is in good farming con-
ditOn and the buildings on the same are in good
repair that unless someone who has authority
from this Court is appointed to care for and look
after the same the said farm and buildings will
go to destruction and waste, and it is also abso-
! lutely necessary that someone should look after
| the insurance on the buildings.
There is great deal of ill-feeling among the
heirs at law and as one of the heirs at law, they
| being tenants in common of the said property,
has as much right to the possession and manage
ment of the said property as any other of the
heirs at law, there will always be conflicts and
| contentious between the said heirsat law during
the said controversy as to the possession and
management of the said real estate. The prop
erty Will. for want OF proper care and manage
ment be very much depressed and deprecated
in value and go to waste, as no possible agree
ment can be made between the heirs at law as to
| who will manage and control the same. The
| damage that will be caused by the want OF
| proper care will be great and irreparable to the
interests of the parties concerned and especially
| to the plaintiffs, and it is therefore necessary
and protect all the interests of the parties in
| tereSted, including the rights of the said widow
| Celinda c. Duffy that Joseph Duffy is now anC
has been. since the death of said Michael Duffy
in possession of said buildings and real estate
! but that he has no more right than any other o.
the heirs at law of the said Michael Duffy; tina
so long as the controversy over the alleged will
is undetermined. gad Joseph Duffy and ELI
Duffy, his wife /; Michael Duffy. Jr. Mary Pros
peri and James Prospect, her husband. can hav'
4 estate any more than the other children who ar
| heirs at law of the said Michael Duffy.
1t is therefore this I'd day of April 1900. or
dered by the Circuit Court for Baltimore Coun
in each of four successive weeks before the 12tl
day of May, 1900, give notice to the said MARI
| ProSperi and James Prospect, her husband, thu
| absent defendants, of the object and substance
OF this bill, warming them to appear in person Oh
| by solicitor in this Court,
On or before the 3Ist day of May, 1900,
to show cause, if any they have, why decree
ought not to be passed as prayed.
caa.. N. CHARLES BURKE.
n. BoSLEY MERRYMAN, Clerk.
| Apl. T.-5t.