Noreen v. Sparks

104 F. Supp. 675, 1952 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4377
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Noreen v. Sparks. Read the opinion of the Court — 103 F. Supp. 588
District Court, District of Columbia·Decided May 14, 1952·No. Civ. No. 2687-50·Published

Opinion

MORRIS, District Judge.

Upon motion of plaintiffs for rehearing and modification of memorandum opinion, and opposition of defendants thereto, said motion is denied.

Upon motion of the intervening defendant, Mercantile Trust Company of Baltimore, for reconsideration, and opposition of defendants thereto, I am still of the view that the testatrix intended that the Potts half of the trust property, in the event of Cornelia Ross Potts’'death without leaving any child or children, should vest in descendants of Amelia Hadel, then living, and not in strangers to her blood who might have been devisees or grantees of such descendants of Amelia Hadel, in whom the Hadel half of the trust property had previously vested. The motion for reconsideration is denied.

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

Noreen v. Sparks, 104 F. Supp. 675, 1952 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4377 (D.D.C. 1952).

104 F. Supp. 675 (Noreen v. Sparks) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.