Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

195 F.2d 776

Docket No. 11041.

Wegenast v. Pheylen

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted Feb. 15, 1952.

Decided March 13, 1952.

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1952-03-13

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently March 1952

1 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Relies on Wegenast v. Pheylen

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1952-03-13

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Albert F. Beasley, Washington, D. C., for appellant.

¶2William B. Jones, Washington, D.. C., with whom George E. Hamilton, Jr., Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee.

¶3Before EDGERTON, WILBUR K. MILLER and PRETTYMAN, Circuit Judges.

¶4*777PER CURIAM.

¶5D.C.Code 1940, § 18-211 provides that if a testator’s widow renounces all claim under his will, or is left nothing in his will, she is "entitled, in addition to her dower, to the distributive share of his personal property, which she would have taken had he died intestate … Section 18-702 provides that “If the intestate leave a widow or surviving husband and no child, parent, grandchild, brother, or sister, or the child of a brother or sister of the said intestate, the said widow or surviving husband shall be entitled to the whole.” The °District Court, 98 F.Supp. 371, rightly held that the widow of a testator who left none of the relatives enumerated in § 18-702 is entitled to the whole of his personal estate^

¶6Affirmed.

/195/f2d/776 · .json · Public domain