In re Estate of Mahoney (1966) Facts:  Howard Mahoney died intestate on May 6, 1961 of gunshot wounds  His wife, Charlotte the appellant here was tried of the murder & was convicted by the jury of the crime of manslaughter in March 1962 & is serving her sentence  Howard was survived by his wife, and his father & mother & had no issue  Mark Mahoney, was appointed administrator of his estate which amounts to $3,885.89. the probate court entered a judgment decreeing the residue of the estate in equal shares to his mother & father  An appeal from the judgment order & decree been taken here by the appellant widow Issue:  Whether a widow convicted of manslaughter in connection with the death of her husband may inherit from his estate (this is a question of first impression) In some jurisdictions, statutes have been enacted which in certain instances, prevent a person who has killed another from taking by descent or distribution from the person he has killed Courts in those states that have no statute preventing a slayer from taking the descent or distribution from the estate of his victim, have followed three separate & different lines of decision: 1. the legal title passed to the slayer & may be retained by him in spite of his crime 2. the legal title will not pass to the slayer because of the equitable principle that no one should be permitted to profit by his own fraud, or take advantage and profit as a result of his own wrong or crime 3. the legal title passes to the slayer but equity holds him to be a constructive trustee for the heirs or next of kin of the decedent. (b/c of the unconscionable mode by which the property is acquired by the slayer, equity treats him as a constructive trustee & compels him to convey the property to the heirs or next of kin of the deceased) The court discusses Kelley v. State but the doctrine of constructive trust is involved to prevent the slayer from profiting from his crime but not as an added criminal penalty Appellants argument: she was convicted of manslaughter not murder and she says that the restatement of restitution approves the application of constructive trust where a devisee or legatee murders the testator, but that such rules are not applicable where the slayer was guilty of manslaughter court says this is the proper rule to follow! The cause now before us is here on a direct appeal from the probate court >findings of fact were made below from which it appears that the judgment of the probate court decreeing the estate of Howard Mahoney to his parents rather than to the widow, based on the felonious killing of her husband The judgment bellow decreed the estate directly to the parents, which was in direct contravention of the statutes of descent and distribution. The probate court was bound to follow the statutes of descent and distribution and its decree was in error and must be reversed The probate court was without jurisdiction to impose a constructive trust on the estate in the hands of the appellant, even if it had attempted to do so. Probate courts are courts of limited jurisdiction given by statute and do not have the power to establish purely equitable rights & claims The jurisdiction over charging the appellant with a constructive trust on the estate of Howard Mahoney lies in the court of chancery, and not in the probate court. Decree reversed & case remanded with directions that the proceedings herein be stayed for 60 days to give the administrator of the estate of howard Mahoney an opportunity to apply for relief.