Kean v. Miller

D.C. Circuit

Kean v. Miller

47 App. D.C. 516, 1918 U.S. App. LEXIS 2451

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedApril 1, 1918

DocketNo. 3083

StatusPublished

This text of 47 App. D.C. 516 (Kean v. Miller) 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

Kean v. Miller, 47 App. D.C. 516, 1918 U.S. App. LEXIS 2451 (D.C. Cir. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Air. Justice Noun

delivered the opinion of the Court:

Appellant has no standing in this proceeding. Donovan v. Mahoney, 45 App. D. C. 480. In the present ease the property involved, according to the averments of the bill, is personal property, the title to which would not be; in appellant even though the will and assignment were annulled. Smith v. Wilson. 17 Md. 460, 79 Am. Dec. 665. ^Moreover, for aught that appears, if the estate were administered the value of the stock might not be more than sufficient to liquidate the debts and [518]*518funeral expenses, for the bill does not allege that there.were no such debts and expenses. Clearly, therefore, appellant has shown no sueli title to the subject-matter in dispute as to give her a standing here.

Appellant places some reliance upon Karrick v. Landon, 41 App. D. C. 416, hut the difference between that case and this is very clear, for there real estate was involved, and the plaintiffs, as heirs at law, had a legal interest therein.

It follows that the decree must he affirmed, with costs.

Affirmed.

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

Air. Justice Noun

delivered the opinion of the Court:

Appellant has no standing in this proceeding. Donovan v. Mahoney, 45 App. D. C. 480. In the present ease the property involved, according to the averments of the bill, is personal property, the title to which would not be; in appellant even though the will and assignment were annulled. Smith v. Wilson. 17 Md. 460, 79 Am. Dec. 665. ^Moreover, for aught that appears, if the estate were administered the value of the stock might not be more than sufficient to liquidate the debts and [518]*518funeral expenses, for the bill does not allege that there.were no such debts and expenses. Clearly, therefore, appellant has shown no sueli title to the subject-matter in dispute as to give her a standing here.

Appellant places some reliance upon Karrick v. Landon, 41 App. D. C. 416, hut the difference between that case and this is very clear, for there real estate was involved, and the plaintiffs, as heirs at law, had a legal interest therein.

It follows that the decree must he affirmed, with costs.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 App. D.C. 516, 1918 U.S. App. LEXIS 2451, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kean-v-miller-cadc-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack