Brosnan v. Brosnan

Decision Date07 May 1923
Docket Number3907.
Citation289 F. 547
PartiesBROSNAN v. BROSNAN et al.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

Submitted February 7, 1923.

Appeal from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.

Wilton J. Lambert, R. H. Yeatman, and George C. Gertman, all of Washington, D.C., for appellant.

W Gwynn Gardiner, of Washington, D.C., for appellees.

Before SMYTH, Chief Justice, ROBB, Associate Justice, and MARTIN Judge, of the United States Court of Customs Appeals.

MARTIN Acting Associate Justice.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, holding a probate court, whereby an administrator was removed upon a complaint filed by the heirs.

On September 21, 1917, the appellant, John Brosnan, Jr., was regularly appointed and qualified as the sole administrator of the estate of John Brosnan, Sr., deceased. In his petition for appointment he stated that the decedent had died intestate, leaving six children surviving him as his only heirs at law, to wit, one son, the petitioner, and five daughters; that the estate consisted in part of 496 shares of the capital stock of the Provident Relief Association, which were deposited with a local bank, together with an equal number of like shares belonging to the petitioner, as collateral for a debt amounting to $32,500, owing to the bank as a joint obligation of the petitioner and the decedent. The five daughters of the decedent filed a written consent to the appointment of the petitioner as administrator.

In March, 1918, an inventory and appraisement of the estate was returned by the administrator, wherein the shares of stock in the Provident Relief Association were returned as follows, to wit: Certificate No. 61, for 155 shares; certificate No. 69 for 8 shares; certificate No. 64, for 335 shares--being 498 shares in all, and were appraised at $15,936. In October, 1919, the administrator filed his first account, charging himself with receipts of $4,814.13, and crediting himself with payments of $6,238.01, leaving the estate overdrawn in account with him in the sum of $1,423.88. The following note appeared in the account with reference to the shares of stock above mentioned, to wit:

'Note.-- This stock, consisting of 498 shares of the capital stock of the Provident Relief Association, of Washington, D.C., was at the death of John Brosnan, and still is deposited with the Munsey Trust Company as part collateral to a joint note signed and endorsed by the decedent and John Brosnan, Jr., for $35,000, one-half of which amount, namely, $17,500, was due from decedent to the Munsey Trust Company and is subject to contribution in the sum of at least one-half of the amount of the note for $35,000.'

No exception was taken by any person either to the inventory and appraisement or to the foregoing account, and the latter was regularly approved and passed by the court. In October, 1920, an affidavit in lieu of a second account was filed by the administrator, stating that no money or other assets had been received or disbursed by him since the date of his first account. No exception was filed thereto, and the affidavit was approved and passed by the court in lieu of a second account. In October, 1921, the administrator filed a similar affidavit in lieu of a third account, and thereupon the heirs filed exceptions, objecting to the acceptance of the affidavit. Apparently these exceptions were never submitted to the court, for afterwards, to wit, on April 21, 1922, the heirs filed a petition for the removal of the administrator and the appointment of his successor. As grounds for such removal they alleged that the decedent at the time of his death was the owner of 995 shares of the total capital stock of 1,000 shares of the Provident Relief Association; that the administrator nevertheless had returned only 498 shares thereof in the inventory of the estate, claiming himself to be the owner of the residue. They stated furthermore, upon information, that the value of the shares was between $150,000 and $300,000, and averred that the administrator had misused his control over the estate's stock, by having himself elected president of the company at an excessive salary, and by other similar breaches of his trust in relation both to the company and the estate. They alleged that they had been induced to give their written consent to his appointment as administrator because of their fear that otherwise he would inflict great bodily harm upon them. They charged that he was intending and attempting to defraud them of their interest in the estate, and prayed for his removal and the appointment of a disinterested administrator in his stead.

The administrator filed an answer under oath, which in effect denied the accusations against him. He averred specifically that he was the owner in his own right of 497 shares of said capital stock at the time of decedent's death, and that the decedent owned 498 shares of similar stock, and furthermore that both his own shares and those of decedent had been deposited with the Munsey Trust Company in decedent's lifetime as security for a joint obligation of both of them to that bank, that at the time of decedent's death the sum of $35,000 was due and owing thereon, and that that debt remains wholly unpaid, with the stock still held by the bank as security therefor.

The two pleadings just referred to set out in great detail the conflicting claims of the parties with reference to the affairs of the Provident Relief Association aforesaid. That company, however, is not a party in this case, and the court has no jurisdiction over it, nor can the court in this proceeding afford any relief to the parties as actual or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Randall v. Bockhorst, 12769.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • January 5, 1956
    ...several cases tend to support appellee's position. See Williams v. Williams, 24 App.D.C. 214; Id., 25 App.D.C. 32; Brosnan v. Brosnan, 53 App.D.C. 149, 152, 289 F. 547, 550. But the more recent case of Haviland v. Harriss, 60 App.D.C. 255, 50 F.2d 1069, is of contrary import. There the cour......
  • Goldsborough v. Marshall, 13380
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • March 21, 1957
    ...is before us as to whether some other person having a statutory preference should have been appointed in their stead. Brosnan v. Brosnan, 1923, 53 App.D.C. 149, 289 F. 547, relied on by appellant, was decided under Section 20-504 of the Code, a section which is clearly framed to authorize r......
  • Grock v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • May 7, 1923
  • Bramhall v. Brosnan
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • May 4, 1925
    ...and appointing his successor. The reasons for this action sufficiently appear in the foregoing statement. See, also, Brosnan v. Brosnan et al., 53 App. D. C. 149, 289 F. 547. We have considered the exceptions taken by the administrator to the admission of the depositions of C. H. Pope as ev......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT