Prall v. Prall

• Decision Date: 01 June 1926
• Docket Number: No. 4423.,4423.
• Citation: 13 F.2d 305,56 App. DC 333
• Parties: PRALL v. PRALL et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

56 App. DC 333, 13 F.2d 305 (1926)

PRALL v. PRALL et al.

No. 4423.

Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.

Submitted May 14, 1926.

Decided June 1, 1926.

C. V. Imlay and R. H. McNeill, both of Washington, D. C., for appellant.

A. L. Newmeyer, M. W. King, and R. A. Cusick, all of Washington, D. C., for appellees.

Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices.

VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered upon the verdict of a jury in an action of ejectment, wherein the plaintiff, Elizabeth C. Prall, by her committee, Charles V. Imlay, sought to establish her title to certain real estate, 918-920 Sixteenth Street, N. W., in the city of Washington.

It appears that William E. Prall, Sr., on May 17, 1872, conveyed the premises in question to his children, Jennie M., Annie M., Emma C., and William E. Prall, Jr., "for and during their natural life as tenants in common, with remainders to the children of the said parties of the second part, their heirs and assigns, as tenants in common in fee simple."

Plaintiff's claim is based upon the declaration that she had been lawfully married to William E. Prall, Jr. (in this proceeding referred to as William E. Prall, II); that as a result of said marriage there was born to them a son, William E. Prall, III, who was born December 8, 1889; that he died on or about February 27, 1903, leaving, as his only heir at law, his father, William E. Prall, II; that William E. Prall, II, a resident of the city, county, and state of New York, died on March 28, 1903, leaving a last will and testament, in which he devised all his property to the plaintiff, Elizabeth C. Prall.

Plaintiff filed a bill in equity in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia in 1904 for partition of the property in question, on which a decree was entered directing partition and sale. On appeal, this court affirmed the decree, with modifications. Prall v. Prall, 39 App. D. C. 100, in which it was adjudged that Elizabeth C. Prall was seized of a one-fourth vested interest in the remainder of the property. In 1914, pursuant to the mandate of this court, a decree was entered in the Supreme Court of the District, directing a sale of the property and a division of the proceeds on this basis. No action was taken on this decree, and in June, 1919, plaintiff was adjudged to be of unsound mind, and Charles V. Imlay, the present committee, was substituted in her stead.

Shortly thereafter a petition was filed by Gladys E. Lavagnino, a daughter of one of the life tenants, praying that the decree of sale be set aside, on the ground that she was an infant and not properly represented when the decree was entered. A new decree directing a sale of the property was entered on May 12, 1920, which was affirmed by this court in Prall v. Imlay et al., 50 App. D. C. 252, 270 F. 688. Subsequently the property was sold by trustees; but prior to the sale there had been filed by Gladys E. Lavagnino a bill of review to set aside all the proceedings previously taken in the equity suit filed in 1904, on the ground of newly discovered evidence. On appeal from an order denying the bill of review, this court reversed the lower court (Lavagnino v. Prall, 52 App. D. C. 77, 281 F. 581), granting the bill of review, and directing the court below to "vacate all orders made under the bill of 1904 and the amended bill of 1911, permit the complainant, Elizabeth C. Prall, or her committee, to make such amendment thereof as may be deemed advisable, and that the various defendants, including the petitioner, be permitted to answer as they may be advised, in order that the issue may be tried and determined, to the end that full and complete justice may be attained."

Pursuant to the mandate of this court, an amended bill for partition was filed by plaintiff, to which the various defendants answered; and, it appearing to the equity court that a question of title was raised by the answer, an order was made suspending the equity cause, with leave to plaintiff to file an action at law to try the question of title, and for this purpose the cause was referred to the law court. An application for special appeal from the order of transfer was made by plaintiff to this court, but was denied. Accordingly plaintiff filed her action in ejectment, relying upon the facts aforesaid, setting forth her marriage to William E. Prall, II, the birth of her son, William E. Prall, III, the death of the son, the execution of the will by William E. Prall, II, and his death.

In the answer, the defendants denied the marriage, denied that William E. Prall, III, was the son of William E. Prall, II, and denied the validity of the will, on the ground of mental incompetency, and that it had been procured by fraud and undue influence. The case was tried to a jury, and a general verdict returned in favor of the defendants. From the judgment thereon the present appeal is prosecuted.

The order granting the bill of review was sweeping in its terms. It vacated all proceedings had under the original bill for partition filed in 1904 and granted permission to amend the original bill or to plead, as the plaintiff might otherwise be advised, with full right to all the defendants to answer, independently of any proceedings theretofore had in the case. In other words, it opened the case anew for any proper defense which might be interposed to the original bill as amended. Neither the plaintiff nor the defendants were to be estopped or prejudiced by any pleading, failure to plead, or admission contained in or growing out of the proceedings had in the original case, or under an amended bill filed in 1911.

The errors relied upon relate to the admission of certain testimony in the trial of the case bel...