Collins v. O'BRIEN, 11605.
| Decision Date | 19 November 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 11605.,11605. |
| Parties | COLLINS et al. v. O'BRIEN et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. William B. Collins, appellant, pro se.
Mr. Al. Philip Kane, Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Charles V. Koons and William A. Kehoe, Jr., Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellees.
Before CLARK, WILBUR K. MILLER and WASHINGTON, Circuit Judges.
This case involves competing claims to the estate of James L. Collins, who died intestate. On September 2, 1947, the District Court entered an order authorizing service by publication on certain named persons, as well as "all the unknown heirs at law and next of kin of James L. Collins, deceased, and all other persons concerned," and commanding them to appear on December 15, 1947, "to show cause * * * why they severally have any interest in the said estate." A Special Master was appointed by the District Court by order dated December 17, 1947. After holding hearings, the Special Master issued on August 19, 1948, a report which concluded that none of the then claimants (including appellant William B. Collins) had established any relationship to the deceased: the estate was declared escheated to the District of Columbia. Appellant excepted. Before the District Court had ruled on the matter, additional claimants moved to intervene. By order dated May 18, 1949, the District Court stayed the adoption of the Special Master's report and allowed the requested interventions. Appellees were allowed to intervene by orders dated April 19, 1950. Further hearings were held by the Special Master, and on October 31, 1951, he issued his amended report, which awarded the estate to the appellees.
The principal contention of appellant William B. Collins is that the order of publication commanding all persons concerned to appear on December 15, 1947, had the effect of precluding any intervention after that date. This contention is untenable. The instant order was not and did not purport to be a final decree barring all claimants failing to appear. The governing statute provides that "* * * no final decree shall be passed against said parties unknown heirs and others served by publication unless the court shall be satisfied that due diligence has been used to ascertain such unknown heirs." Section 13-113, D.C.Code (1951). It is clear that the District Court, in allowing appellees to intervene in this case prior to the entry of a final decree, acted within — and did not abuse — its discretionary powers. See Frazier v. Kutz, 1943, 78 U.S.App. D.C. 241,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People ex rel. Snead v. Kirkland
...Snead is a layman and not an attorney. While he may represent himself with respect to his individual claims, Collins v. O'Brien, 93 U.S. App.D.C. 152, 208 F.2d 44 (1953), cert. denied 347 U.S. 944, 74 S.Ct. 640, 98 L.Ed. 1092 (1954), he is not authorized to act as an attorney for others in ......
-
Endsley v. Mayberg
... ... States , 308 F.2d 78, 79 (9th Cir. 1962); Collins v. O'Brien , 93 U.S.App.D.C. 152, 208 F.2d 44, 45 ... (1953), cert. denied, 347 U.S. 944, 74 ... ...
-
U.S. ex rel. Rockefeller v. Westinghouse Elec. Co.
...729 F.2d 831, 834 (D.C.Cir.1984) (holding that a lay person cannot appear as counsel for others); Collins v. O'Brien, 208 F.2d 44, 45 (D.C.Cir.1953) (per curiam) (same). In Georgiades, the District of Columbia Circuit held that a son, who was not a member of any bar, could not represent his......
-
Robinson v. Prisil
...v. U. S., 366 F.2d 286, 288 (9th Cir.1966), citing Russell v.United States, 308 F.2d 78, 79 (9th Cir. 1962); Collins v. O'Brien, 93 U.S. App. D.C. 152, 208 F.2d 44, 45 (1953), cert. denied, 347 U.S. 944 (1954). Therefore, it is likely that plaintiff can bring this action only on his own beh......