Holzbeierlein v. Grant

D.C. Circuit

Holzbeierlein v. Grant

117 F.2d 26, 73 App. D.C. 154, 1941 U.S. App. LEXIS 4169

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJanuary 6, 1941

DocketNo. 7629

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 117 F.2d 26 (Holzbeierlein v. Grant) 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

Holzbeierlein v. Grant, 117 F.2d 26, 73 App. D.C. 154, 1941 U.S. App. LEXIS 4169 (D.C. Cir. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

VINSON, Associate Justice.

Michael M. Holzbeierlein died testate. The appellant, after renouncing her interest under the will and electing to take as his widow under the statutes, filed a petition seeking delivery of certain securities which are now held by the executors of the will. The District Court, sitting in Probate, dismissed the petition.

A reading of the petition filed in the Probate Court leaves doubt in regard to the theory upon which appellant claims the securities. Considering the petition as a whole and the first prayer for relief, however, it can be determined that she is not claiming this personal property as a dis-tributee under the statutes.

In her brief, appellant claims the ownership of these securities under a written contract.¹ As a result they would not be distributed as a part of the estate. The relief requested is in the nature of specific performance.

Although appellant will be a distributee under the statutes, for the purposes of this action she is in the position of a third party claiming ownership, as against the estate, of these securities held by the executors. The Probate Court is a tribunal of limited jurisdiction. Jurisdiction to settle ownership of property has not been given.²

Affirmed.

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

VINSON, Associate Justice.

Michael M. Holzbeierlein died testate. The appellant, after renouncing her interest under the will and electing to take as his widow under the statutes, filed a petition seeking delivery of certain securities which are now held by the executors of the will. The District Court, sitting in Probate, dismissed the petition.

A reading of the petition filed in the Probate Court leaves doubt in regard to the theory upon which appellant claims the securities. Considering the petition as a whole and the first prayer for relief, however, it can be determined that she is not claiming this personal property as a dis-tributee under the statutes.

In her brief, appellant claims the ownership of these securities under a written contract.¹ As a result they would not be distributed as a part of the estate. The relief requested is in the nature of specific performance.

Although appellant will be a distributee under the statutes, for the purposes of this action she is in the position of a third party claiming ownership, as against the estate, of these securities held by the executors. The Probate Court is a tribunal of limited jurisdiction. Jurisdiction to settle ownership of property has not been given.²

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 F.2d 26, 73 App. D.C. 154, 1941 U.S. App. LEXIS 4169, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holzbeierlein-v-grant-cadc-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack