Cain v. Hutson

D.C. Circuit

Cain v. Hutson

127 F.2d 19, 75 U.S. App. D.C. 335, 1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 3793

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedApril 6, 1942

DocketNo. 7927

StatusPublished

This text of 127 F.2d 19 (Cain v. Hutson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cain v. Hutson, 127 F.2d 19, 75 U.S. App. D.C. 335, 1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 3793 (D.C. Cir. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

EDGERTON, Associate Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the District Court dismissing appellant’s suit.

Appellees were mortgagees under a bond and mortgage dated June 23, 1932, in the principal sum of $6,800. The mortgage covered real estate in Pennsylvania, and was executed there by Cecil B. Pascoe. By May 10, 1939, when this complaint was filed, appellees had collected over $12,000. This is a suit for an accounting of the sums collected.

Pascoe, the mortgagor, died a resident of Pennsylvania, where his estate is being administered. His administrator is not a party to this suit.¹ Plaintiff-appellant is the executrix of the estate of the mortgagor’s mother, now deceased, who was his sole heir and next of kin. Under the laws of both the District of 'Columbia² and Pennsylvania³ the mortgagor’s administrator was a necessary party to this suit. The complaint was rightly dismissed.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

EDGERTON, Associate Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the District Court dismissing appellant’s suit.

Appellees were mortgagees under a bond and mortgage dated June 23, 1932, in the principal sum of $6,800. The mortgage covered real estate in Pennsylvania, and was executed there by Cecil B. Pascoe. By May 10, 1939, when this complaint was filed, appellees had collected over $12,000. This is a suit for an accounting of the sums collected.

Pascoe, the mortgagor, died a resident of Pennsylvania, where his estate is being administered. His administrator is not a party to this suit.¹ Plaintiff-appellant is the executrix of the estate of the mortgagor’s mother, now deceased, who was his sole heir and next of kin. Under the laws of both the District of 'Columbia² and Pennsylvania³ the mortgagor’s administrator was a necessary party to this suit. The complaint was rightly dismissed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 F.2d 19, 75 U.S. App. D.C. 335, 1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 3793, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cain-v-hutson-cadc-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack