Hannan v. Matthew Slush, Security Trust Co.

Sixth Circuit

Hannan v. Matthew Slush, Security Trust Co.

299 F. 1022, 1924 U.S. App. LEXIS 3138

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit·Decided July 3, 1924·No. No. 3908·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM?

Except that here the plaintiffs are children of a deceased brother, instead of being the brother of William W. Hannan, deceased, this case is identical with that of Frank E. Hannan v. Greene et al., 199 N. W. 426, decided by the Supreme Court of the state of Michigan jointly with the appeal of Prank E. Hannan, in the Matter of the Estate of William W. Hannan, Deceased, 199 N. W. 423, opinion filed on June 18, 1924. We concur fully in the conclusions therein reached and in the reasons therefor as therein expressed. While the decree of the District Court (283 Fed. 211) does not recite that the dismissal was for want of jurisdiction, it is clear from the accompanying opinion that it was dismissed on this ground. We have heretofore held that there was jurisdiction, and at the request of all parties we have considered the case on its merits. The decree of dismissal will therefore be modified, so as to show that the bill is dismissed for want of equity, and, as modified, it is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM?

Except that here the plaintiffs are children of a deceased brother, instead of being the brother of William W. Hannan, deceased, this case is identical with that of Frank E. Hannan v. Greene et al., 199 N. W. 426, decided by the Supreme Court of the state of Michigan jointly with the appeal of Prank E. Hannan, in the Matter of the Estate of William W. Hannan, Deceased, 199 N. W. 423, opinion filed on June 18, 1924. We concur fully in the conclusions therein reached and in the reasons therefor as therein expressed. While the decree of the District Court (283 Fed. 211) does not recite that the dismissal was for want of jurisdiction, it is clear from the accompanying opinion that it was dismissed on this ground. We have heretofore held that there was jurisdiction, and at the request of all parties we have considered the case on its merits. The decree of dismissal will therefore be modified, so as to show that the bill is dismissed for want of equity, and, as modified, it is affirmed.

Hannan v. Matthew Slush, Security Trust Co., 299 F. 1022, 1924 U.S. App. LEXIS 3138 (6th Cir. 1924).

Pincite

299 F. 1022 (Hannan v. Matthew Slush, Security Trust Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related