Mutual Benefit Life Insurance v. Hardin

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Mutual Benefit Life Insurance v. Hardin

2 D.C. 118

District of Columbia Court of Appeals·Decided July 1, 1935·No. Equity No. 59052·Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

BAILEY, J.

The proceedings for the appointment of trustees in this ease were summary in character under the provisions of the statute and the provisions of the statute must be strictly followed. The rule laid upon the defendants, while original process, is not a subpoena, and is in form more like a summons at law. The return day under the rule is the tenth day after service, under a subpoena the defendant has twenty days within which to answer.

I do not think therefore that the provisions of Equity Rule 23, Section 4, apply to the service of a rule issued under the provisions of Section 534 et seq. of the Code, and the motion to vacate the decree appointing trustees will be sustained.

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

MEMORANDUM

BAILEY, J.

The proceedings for the appointment of trustees in this ease were summary in character under the provisions of the statute and the provisions of the statute must be strictly followed. The rule laid upon the defendants, while original process, is not a subpoena, and is in form more like a summons at law. The return day under the rule is the tenth day after service, under a subpoena the defendant has twenty days within which to answer.

I do not think therefore that the provisions of Equity Rule 23, Section 4, apply to the service of a rule issued under the provisions of Section 534 et seq. of the Code, and the motion to vacate the decree appointing trustees will be sustained.

Mutual Benefit Life Insurance v. Hardin, 2 D.C. 118 (D.C. 1935).

Pincite

2 D.C. 118 (Mutual Benefit Life Insurance v. Hardin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.