In re Estate of Underwood

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

In re Estate of Underwood

2 D.C. 31

District of Columbia Court of Appeals·Decided July 1, 1935·No. Administration No. 44507·Published

Opinion

BAILEY, J.

In my opinion the Probate Court has jurisdiction neither of the matters raised in the petition of the administrator c.t.a., nor of the issues raised by the petition and the answer thereto. The jurisdiction of that court is entirely statutory. There is nothing in Section 119 of the D. C. Code that is applicable and Section 369 clearly refers to cases where the provisions of a will render it necessary for the executor or administrator c.t.a. to retain assets in his hands.

The petition should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

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

BAILEY, J.

In my opinion the Probate Court has jurisdiction neither of the matters raised in the petition of the administrator c.t.a., nor of the issues raised by the petition and the answer thereto. The jurisdiction of that court is entirely statutory. There is nothing in Section 119 of the D. C. Code that is applicable and Section 369 clearly refers to cases where the provisions of a will render it necessary for the executor or administrator c.t.a. to retain assets in his hands.

The petition should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

In re Estate of Underwood, 2 D.C. 31 (D.C. 1935).

Pincite

2 D.C. 31 (In re Estate of Underwood) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.