Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

179 F.2d 455

Docket No. 10352.

Cannady v. Kesterson

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1949-10-25

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently December 1953

3 federal appellate ·

3 counsel of record

Relies on Fellheimer v. Townsend · King v. Buttolph · Spriggs v. Stone

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1949-10-25

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1W. P. Cannady, Washington, D. C., for appellant.

¶2Margaret A. Haywood, Washington, D. C., for appellee Kesterson.

¶3Emory B. Smith Washington, D. C., for appellees Rollin and others.

¶4Before CLARK, WILBUR K. MILLER and PRETTYMAN, Circuit Judges.

¶5PER CURIAM.

¶6This cause came on for consideration on the transcript of record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the motion of appellee Kesterson to dismiss this appeal, and on the answers thereto filed by appellant and by Geary Rollin, et al., defendants below, and the Court having duly considered same, It is

¶7Ordered by the Court that this appeal be, and it is hereby, dismissed, on the ground that appellant as executor has no right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court dismissing a complaint brought by the executor for construction of a will. Spriggs v. Stone, 85 U.S.App.D.C. —, 174 F.2d 671. See also King v. Buttolph, 9 Cir., 30 F.2d 769, and In re Michigan-Ohio Bldg. Corporation, 7 Cir., 117 F.2d 191.

/179/f2d/455 · .json · Public domain