Ex parte In the Matter of William J. Dante, Collector of the Estate of Stilson Hutchins, Deceased, Petitioner. riginal

• Decision Date: 28 April 1913
• Docket Number: No. 15,O,15
• Citation: 228 U.S. 429,33 S.Ct. 579,57 L.Ed. 905
• Parties: EX PARTE: IN THE MATTER OF WILLIAM J. DANTE, Collector of the Estate of Stilson Hutchins, Deceased, Petitioner. riginal
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

228 U.S. 429

33 S.Ct. 579

57 L.Ed. 905

EX PARTE: IN THE MATTER OF WILLIAM J. DANTE, Collector of the Estate of Stilson Hutchins, Deceased, Petitioner.

No. 15, Original.

Argued April 14, 1913.

Decided April 28, 1913.

Messrs. Edwin C. Brandenburg, Clarence A. Brandenburg, and F. Walter Brandenburg for petitioner.

Messrs. Wharton E. Lester and michael J. Colbert for respondents.

Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of court:

To a rule commanding the judges of the court of appeals of the District of Columbia to show cause why a certain action should not be reinstated on the docket of the court, and heard and decided upon its merits, return was filed and hearing had on the issues raised. Before passing upon those issues we set out the facts of the controversy.

On April 16, 1912, in an action pending in the supreme court of the District of Columbia, a verdict was returned in favor of the plaintiff India Bagby against Stilson Hutchins. After the filing of a motion for a new trial, and in arrest of judgment, and on Sunday, April 21, 1912, Hutchins died. On May 3, 1912, the trial court overruled the motions and entered judgment nunc pro tunc as of the date of the verdict. The rules required the taking of appeals to the court of appeals of the District within twenty days from a judgment, and, although no representative of the estate had been appointed, the former attorneys of Mr. Hutchins noted an appeal within the time limited, styling themselves 'attorneys for the defendant, and on behalf of the executors named in his last will.' Owing to a contest over the admission of such will to probate, William J. Dante was appointed collector of the estate on June 14, 1912, and soon afterwards was authorized to enter his appearance in the Bagby Case, with authority to 'take such steps as may be necessary to prosecute an appeal from the judgment entered therein.' He then moved in the trial court to vacate and set aside the judgment against Hutchins upon the ground that the court was without power or authority in the premises, 'inasmuch as the cause abated upon the death of said Stilson Hutchins; and upon the further ground that no one representing said estate had been appointed at the time of the hearing upon said motion or the entry of said judgment.' On June 22, 1912, the trial court ordered the action revived in the name of Dante, as collector, in the place and stead of Hutchins, but denied the motion to vacate the judgment. The order concluded as follows 'The said William J. Dante, collector of the estate of Stilson Hutchins, by his attorneys, in open court, notes an appeal to the court of appeals of the District of Columbia,' followed by a recital as to the penalty of the bond for costs. The citation which issued, dated June 24, 1912, required the...