U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1949

Spriggs v. Stone

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided May 23, 1949

174 F.2d 671; 85 U.S. App. D.C. 95; 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 2270 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. Kahl K. Spriggs, Washington, D. C., appellant pro se., Mr. Francis W. Hill, Jr., Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Augustus P. Cren-shaw, III, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellees.

Cases that cite this one

5 later published cases cite this decision.

National Bank of Washington v. District of Columbia (D.C. Cir. 1953)
In re Estate of Jacobson (D.C. 1978)
Seaboard Surety Company, a New York Corp., and Hansen & Rowland, Inc., a Washington Corp. v. United States (9th Cir. 1962)
Cogswell v. Aiken (D.C. 1951)
Cannady v. Kesterson (D.C. Cir. 1949)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

The District Court sitting as a probate court entered an order construing a will. Although devisees adversely affected by the order were parties, they did not appeal. Devisees favorably affected by the order have moved to dismiss an appeal taken by the executor.

“Any party aggrieved by any final order * * * may appeal * * D. C.Code 1940 § 17 — 101. As a general rule an, executor is not aggrieved and therefore cannot appeal unless either the estate as a whole is affected, or else his individual interests are affected as by an order refusing probate or removing the executor or disallowing an expenditure he has made. He cannot appeal for the protection of the interests of particular devisees or legatees who are able to protect themselves by taking an appeal of their own. Cf. Barksdale v. Morgan, 34 App.D.C. 549. Webb v. Lohnes, 68 App.D.C. 310, 96 F.2d 582, is not to the contrary.

Appeal dismissed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.