Collins v. Miller, No. 11140.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia) |
| Writing for the Court | STEPHENS, , WILBUR K. MILLER and BAZELON, Circuit |
| Citation | 198 F.2d 948 |
| Parties | COLLINS v. MILLER. |
| Docket Number | No. 11140. |
| Decision Date | 10 July 1952 |
198 F.2d 948 (1952)
COLLINS
v.
MILLER.
No. 11140.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Decided July 10, 1952.
William B. Collins, pro se.
John J. Carmody, for appellee.
Before STEPHENS, Chief Judge, WILBUR K. MILLER and BAZELON, Circuit Judges.
On Appellee's Motion to Docket and Dismiss.
STEPHENS, Chief Judge.
The question in this case is whether or not an order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissing a petition for the removal of the administrators of the estate of a decedent is appealable. The order was entered May 29, 1951.
The question arises as follows: On June 27, 1946, letters of administration of the estate of James L. Collins, deceased, were issued by the District Court to Charles Perry Miller, Jr., and to Roy M. Perry. Miller is the present appellee; Perry was named an appellee, but died pending the appeal. On October 26, 1950, the appellant, William B. Collins, filed a petition in the District Court alleging, in substance and effect, the following:
William B. Collins is "one of the heirs and/or next of kin" of the decedent, James L. Collins. The administrators Miller and Perry failed during the period of four and one-half years following the issuance of letters of administration to file an inventory and account as required by law. The administrators Miller and Perry transferred to the estate of the decedent, James L. Collins, only the sum of $34,184.46 out of a total of $44,349.62 due said decedent out of the properties of Jeremiah J. Collins, deceased, of whose estate Miller and Perry were also administrators. The administrators Miller and Perry failed to invest in United States bonds, as ordered by the District Court, the sum of $50,000 out of the funds of the decedent, James L. Collins.
As a basis for the relief sought the petition referred to numerous provisions of the District of Columbia Code of 1940 and to Rules of the District Court allegedly implementing the same. In particular the petition relied upon Title 18-401, requiring an administrator, within two months after his appointment, to make and return, upon oath, into court a true inventory of all the goods, chattels, moneys and credits of the deceased which are by law to be administered and shall have come to his possession or knowledge; Title 20-601, requiring every administrator to render to the probate court within twelve months from the date of his letters of administration the first account of his administration; Title 20-602, requiring the administrator from time to time to render other accounts, if the first account should not show the estate which was on hand to be fully administered; Title 20-604, requiring the account returned to state the assets which have come to the administrator's hands, according to the inventory; Title 20-605, requiring the account returned to state the disbursements made by the administrator; Title 20-603, providing that: "If an . . . administrator shall fail to return an account within the time limited by law or fixed by the rules of court, or within such further time as the probate court shall allow, his letters, on application of any person interested, may be revoked and administration granted at the discretion of the court"; Rule 46(b) of the District Court providing that if a proper inventory or account is not filed by a fiduciary within the time prescribed, the Register of Wills shall promptly inform the court, which upon a summary hearing shall remove the fiduciary and appoint a successor, unless for good cause shown the failure is deemed excusable. The petition prayed for the removal of Miller and Perry as administrators and for the appointment of a solvent and competent successor administrator, prayed that because of the alleged derelictions in the performance of their duties nothing be allowed in fees to Miller and Perry, and prayed that upon removal as administrators Miller and Perry be required forthwith to account to their successor. Miller and Perry filed an answer to the appellant's petition. After intermediate orders entered by the District Court which we need not consider, the order of May 29, 1951, dismissing the petition was entered. This appeal was then taken from that order. Thereafter Miller and Perry, as appellees, filed a motion to dismiss the appeal upon the ground that the order is interlocutory in character and that no appeal lies therefrom to this court.
Section 1291 of 28 U.S.C. provides, so far as here pertinent, that "The courts of appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States . . .." We think that within the meaning of that section, as construed and applied by the Supreme Court in Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1, 72 S.Ct. 1 (1951), Swift &...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Redding & Company v. Russwine Construction Corporation, No. 22593.
...use of seized narcotics is appealable); but see Di Bella v. United States, supra note 26. Collins v. Miller, 91 U.S. App.D.C. 143, 198 F.2d 948 (1952) (order dismissing petition for removal of administrator is 30 "An order that does not `terminate an action' but is, on the contrary, made in......
-
83 Hawai'i 412, Labayog v. Labayog, Nos. 16096
...of the litigation. See id. at § 3910. The opinion that is the subject of the A.L.R.2d annotation quoted above is Collins v. Miller, 198 F.2d 948 (D.C.Cir.1952). Collins concluded that an order denying a motion to remove personal representatives for cause is a collateral order. The decision ......
-
Fleischer v. Phillips, No. 58
...have been "too late effectively to review the order" on final distribution of the estate (Collins v. Miller, 91 U.S.App.D.C. 143, 1952, 198 F.2d 948, 950). The order dismissing the petition for removal was held appealable. So here the question of disqualification of defendants' attorneys ca......
-
Youpe v. Moses, No. 11523.
...by assimilating the orders appealed from in the instant case to such orders as were involved in Collins v. Miller, 91 U.S.App.D.C. 143, 198 F.2d 948 (D.C.Cir.1952); Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1, 72 S.Ct. 1, 96 L.Ed. 3 (1951); Roberts v. U. S. District Court, 339 U.S. 844, 70 S.Ct. 954, 94 L.E......
-
Redding & Company v. Russwine Construction Corporation, No. 22593.
...use of seized narcotics is appealable); but see Di Bella v. United States, supra note 26. Collins v. Miller, 91 U.S. App.D.C. 143, 198 F.2d 948 (1952) (order dismissing petition for removal of administrator is 30 "An order that does not `terminate an action' but is, on the contrary, made in......
-
83 Hawai'i 412, Labayog v. Labayog, Nos. 16096
...of the litigation. See id. at § 3910. The opinion that is the subject of the A.L.R.2d annotation quoted above is Collins v. Miller, 198 F.2d 948 (D.C.Cir.1952). Collins concluded that an order denying a motion to remove personal representatives for cause is a collateral order. The decision ......
-
Fleischer v. Phillips, No. 58
...have been "too late effectively to review the order" on final distribution of the estate (Collins v. Miller, 91 U.S.App.D.C. 143, 1952, 198 F.2d 948, 950). The order dismissing the petition for removal was held appealable. So here the question of disqualification of defendants' attorneys ca......
-
Youpe v. Moses, No. 11523.
...by assimilating the orders appealed from in the instant case to such orders as were involved in Collins v. Miller, 91 U.S.App.D.C. 143, 198 F.2d 948 (D.C.Cir.1952); Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1, 72 S.Ct. 1, 96 L.Ed. 3 (1951); Roberts v. U. S. District Court, 339 U.S. 844, 70 S.Ct. 954, 94 L.E......