*1 900 vertical, they Treasury are are slanted Federal instead

tary degrees 1754, 46 Boating twelve off the vertical. Stat. Act of 72 seq. 527 et regula- U.S.C. § Two issues raised: Is the are interpretive tion and therefore without boating is a manufacturer Garelick hearing, requirement of notice and including plastic accessories, identifica- and has the Coast Guard abused its letters. numerals cretion? summary entered District Court The hearing below, upon In the defendants’ defendants, af- judgment and we for the summary judgment motion for the basic firm. agreed parties, facts were requires small numerous Act The samples plaintiff’s merchandise exempt Federal heretofore boats grant- were exhibited to the Court. comply Regulations to a uniform ing defendants’ held system of identification nationwide regulation of June 1961 to inter- be displayed on the and numerals letter pretive and, therefore, exempt nature from the notice and boats. Garelick has stock sides of the hearing require- large supply hands a and in dealers’ (a). ments of 5 U.S.C. subsection hopes and numerals regulation It further held that the provides to boat owners. Act sell arbitrary capricious. nor We 527a(c)): (46 U.S.C. § agree with these conclusions. Gibson Secretary Treasury] Snyder, Wine Co. U.S.App.D.C. v. [of numbering 135, 194 an over-all F.2d establish shall system * *. Affirmed. “(3) number awarded shall painted on, required or at- to be to, bow of tached each side of the issued, for which it was

the vessel size, color,

and shall be of such prescribed by

type, * * * Secretary ’’. In December of after notice and regulations hearing, promulgated O’SULLIVAN, Appellant, implementation of the Act. These regulations provided, among other re- HICKS, Appellee. Arma G. quirements, that the letters and numbers “ * * * in should be block characters No. 16949. * * * good proportion ”, 46 C.F.R. Appeals United States Court of June, 171.05-5. In the Comman- District of Columbia Circuit. dant, discovered considerable Argued Oct. misunderstanding regula- of' regulations tions, issued Decided Jan. attempted clarify the terms used therein. These as follows: “171.05-6 Definition of terms used 171.05-5. (b) phrase “(c) 171.05-5 In § good proportion’ characters

‘block the numerals and mean that shall (not slanted) vertical ^[*] *» regulation complains of this Garelick of letters numerals its stock

because *2 petition died averred that said Force Air at Andrews

Base, Maryland, of a resident while District of petitioner averred that made search inquiry for a will of the decedent and had neither nor obtained one; surviving him his widow and, petitioner’s knowledge, no other persons; that decedent had an interest in a automo- bile, which had been an acci- involved injured; petitioner dent was principal creditor, peti- apply tioner was entitled to for letters of administration. The Probate Court an order entered publication against the widow and the

unknown heirs and kin next of dece- dent; appellant’s directed counsel containing copy letter to said widow " publication. of the order of order publication directed why show cause ad- for granted. ministration should expiration After the time fixed publication, appear- the order of and no ance been entered Probate Court an entered independent administrator, duly qualified. Thereafter Washington, Sullivan, Jr., Charles B. surviving widow, through attorney C., appellant. D. for carrier, for the insurance to vacate the Sedgwick, C., Washington, Paul J. D. the administrator appellee. petition appellant to dismiss the administration, grounds K. Before Wilbur letters of Miller, Bastian Judges. being the motion Cirucit that decedent Burger, resident of Judge. BASTIAN, Circuit and that he left a which was in the possession of decedent’s widow.1 The appeal This is an from an order of the thereupon Probate entered an or- sitting Court, as a Probate der of the ad- Court, vacating ministrator, and this followed. administrator. (1961), pro- Title had been made on as follows: vides petition [ap- one pellant] relations, for letters of administration on “If there be no or those Hicks, appear L. James deceased. decline or refuse to entitled appears, obtaining expressed 1. So far as the will never has intention probate; certainly ancillary been admitted to of Co- ancillary ju in this lumbia. risdiction has ever filed. The widow administration, on disinterested apply and proper party, he, injured notice, since as the summons necessarily plaintiff in have to be the litigation against largest applying for the the estate. creditor *3 neglect same; to and if creditors Appellee no contends that there may granted apply, the it be assets District of the decedent in the cretion the court.” therefore, of Columbia and (1961), Title adminis- D.C.Code § Code, 423, the 40, Under Title of the § argu- may granted. tration This not be operation in Dis- a the of motor vehicle point ment that there does not meet the by is nonresident trict Columbia a finally which, is a claim if estab- here equivalent deemed to rights, gives trial, lished after among certain by non- the such District Commissioners against right proceed them the to attor- resident lawful to be his true and the without insurance carrier. is neys upon may all law- served whom dispute appellant, in successful that if growing any processes out ful action may personal suit, injury issue a writ any accident or collision garnishment against the insurance may while said involved nonresident carrier, whether or not actual the operating the District a motor vehicle in In this is the District of Columbia. section significant connection it is ney that the attor- among things, vides, for the meth- other fact, is, the insurance carrier by od of service on the Commissioners attorney appearing the wife. for the any action, plaintiff the such think, copy 423, if 40, to the defendant. We We think Title that § meaningful, (1961) 423 is it is neces- to be § must be Title D.C.Code § sary, operated together if the proper the nonresident a read to reach inter- personal is deceased and no pretation automobile representative If in this context. that is appointed, sought has been done, person to be estate of a the personal representative 40, by the deceased of Title reached as be by notice escape purpose whom can § be served. kin ac- his next of refuses to statute if cept appointment administrator in the Although appears record or consent to the of Columbia to District as exe- who was named such; or, of another as declined cutrix in the or failed testamentary paper is the event into the District of to come feasor, by if tort the executor deceased against not militate this should testamentary paper to have refuses administrator, pointment as the of an any steps probated to have or to take “largest injured person is in effect appointed. representative personal and, aeeoTdingly, entitled to creditor” Complaint made that the event an administrator appointed. fiduciary for the Failure no good faith, based on the filed or kin heirs at law next of to have petition for administration representative appointed fact that nugatory provi- recited not render should that there 423; District and the of § sions heirs other than the widow. largest authorized, creditor is the proper were made on infor- notice, statements if These summons those en- only, and were due belief mation refuse to decline or titled applicant for fact apply administration. Title sought not obtain could direct supra. applicant widow. from the is said be the creditor in here these formal event, we consider of Columbia. Cf. Welch justify insufficient to statements Welch, qualified App.D.C. 19 F.2d administrator. request He was entitled removal

9Q3 judgment verily follows that believes that the decedent died affirmatively intestate.” must be reversed reinstatement Hicks left no case remanded for real estate in the of Columbia and any personalty an administrator. reference except him left here So ordered. “That the decedent had interest Judge MILLER, in a [sic] of insurance on his WILBUR K. Circuit (dissenting). automobile which he had had an ac- [in] * * Claiming prin- cident to be the appel- March cipal Hicks, presumably creditor of be- George O’Sullivan, lant, a com- pend- cause of his tort claim against plaint James L. *4 ing Virginia, prayed he for letters of for United States District Court proof publica- administration. After of Virginia in which Eastern District of tion, our District Court one alleged sought damages injuries he Isadore Brill administrator of the as when the auto- to have sustained been estate of James L. Hicks an order parties mobiles of the collided on street 13, dated 1961. on November in 2, Columbia complaint immediately In the O’Sullivan Almost thereafter —on July 3, himself a resident of Vir- described ginia as 1961-—-O’Sullivanfiled in the Vir- ginia alleged and suit a for an order sub- stituting party the administrator as de- Defendant, Hicks, “The James L. fendant. No further action was taken is a citizen States United 9, in that action until October is a resident of State of Texas. On that date the court noted that it present He is at the time in the hear, “lacks venue to determine and de- Armed Forces of the United States cause,” cide this and ordered that it be of America and is at the removed to the United States District Sup- time stationed with the 1124th port the District of Post, Squadron, South Fort consequence papers of which all Virginia.” Myer, 11, 1961, filed October in our District Process served on Hicks Vir- Court, which on October 18 ordered that ginia answer, April 6, on 1960. His administrator, Brill, be substituted May 3, 1960, said, alia, filed inter party as defendant. defendant admits citizen of that he is a 1961, attorney 28, October United and is a States resident * * represented had of Texas Hicks in State James his lifetime damage Sep- filed in his name in L. Hicks died June and on suit sugges- substituting motion to vacate the order tember O’Sullivan filed a party defendant, Brill as alleged that death in the action in in which he Virginia. Hicks did Eastern District of not die intestate but naming left a will his widow as execu- damages pend- While the suit alleged trix. He also that Hicks was ing Virginia, O’Sullivan filed on Feb- legal “neither resident of nor domiciled ruary probate branch in the District of Columbia at the time of the United States District Court for probate his death” that the branch petition of Columbia the District of the District Court for the District of of administration on the estate jurisdiction, Columbia was without alleged James L. Hicks in which he Brill as ad- Hicks “was a citizen of the United improvidently ministrator was entered. and a States the District * * opposition In an to this alleged alleged November diligent “a search “ ** inquiry for a will of said decedent and local creditors have a any right nor obtained to honor Administration [sic] one, as widow fails and refuses District, left obli- on decedent letters of administration take action. The Columbia; gations granted, on in the District estate namely interested, person claim plaintiff. property proof satisfactory to the Columbia; rights court, decedent died intes- namely policy.” insurance tate.” certain So, before can the substitution The motion to vacate granted, appear must was denied Brill defendant personal prop- prejudice. decedent left real or without erty here, satisfactory proof must surviving On November show he was intestate. filed, in Administration appoint- persuaded ceeding I am not at all that a dece- in which Brill public liability dent’s dam- ed, a motion to vacate the age O’Sullivan’s automobile him and to dismiss appoint- is an petition of administration. asset authorizes for letters contrary if such ment of administrator. But therein It was representation within the mean- made in the an “estate” *5 ing 20-201, letters, in the Dis- not a resident is not § was Hicks left trict unless the was in District decedent a or domiciled the Texas of the the State of District was a resident of was further the of his death. time only intestacy proof The was the alleged representa- that, contrary the to allegation in O’Sullivan’s by O’Sullivan, not did decedent “ * * * your petitioner has That naming will intestate but left a valid die diligent inquiry amade search and she does that his executrix for will of said in the District of Columbia. reside not nor obtained alleged Hicks left that one, no credi- and had verily believes in- the decedent died here. tors testate.” O’Sullivan November On question In the wheth- connection with opposition to that er or Hicks a resident the not was of Hicks “on claimed to be creditor he things Columbia, two are District of significant: injury personal claim.” (a) complaint in the in his alleged failed “That the wife alleged Virginia court Hicks O’Sullivan counsel to communicate with and refused Texas, a resident of and in an- was though re- J. O'Sullivan was a swer Hicks admitted that he resi- so; quested did not disclose do state; (b) in widow’s dent the will; refused the contents counsel proceeding Administration motion the normally, not- to administer vacate Brill as the withstanding presence administrator, she that Hicks covering the automobile of operated or not domiciled in. was a resident said decedent.” Columbia, and in the District of January 5, hearing, after opposition to O’Sullivan did vacated the order of Court District deny allegation. not appointed which conclude, therefore, I con- Brill as administrator. O’Sulli- Isadore sidering the motion to vacate Brill’s appeals from that order. van pointment have Section concluding justified was Hicks grant governs of letters of adminis- District of not a resident of the jurisdiction: in this he died and therefore did when not any person “On the death leave the District the of insur- leaving personal justified real estate ance said grant jurisdiction. of letters this to- “[I]f § Moreover, justified meaningful,” my colleagues the record say, here. “it- necessary, did not die intes- conclusion if the nonresident who'* allegation operated a valid that he left tate. the automobile is deceased andl personal denied, representative ap«- in effect no will was but was not has been my view, pointed, either the fact representative admitted. that a a resident of the Hicks was not deceased be on whom property here, or notice District and left § provision a valid the fact that left served.” But 423 makes no § vacating .enough justify the order anof administrator an administrator. deceased nonresident in- who was volved in an automobile accident correct to “the I do think it is not during said, his life. As I have within decedent died intestate” only 20-201 provision § is the Code we meaning hewill of 20-201 because § authorizing of an probated had not been when administrator and it does not cover the Brill’s sug- Consequently, situation. I ordinary meaning of entered. gest just quoted the sentence adjective “intestate” is “without majority amending I means made a valid will.” think this 40-423 but also 20-201. if he left that a decedent is intestate paper purporting authority to be a last will and It seems to me that the admissible executed so as to be testament Court to vacate an order granting probate in the of his resi- letters of administration which *6 though proved, properly even had dence when been entered misconception under a formally amply admitted by the will has not been material facts is shown probate. so, Bockhorst, this were not then Randall U.S.App.D.C. v. If 98 testate, (1956), ever died because he 232 no decedent F.2d 334 from which I quote: intestate from the in- would death until the hour when a stant of his questions an order of probate established his last court will sitting Court, pur- document which and testament the bate, (1) appellant removed ported is to be such. It inconceivable to as administratrix of the estate of her court of the District of Colum- me brother, city died in this grant letters of administration bia can (2) on March ap- a decedent who left a docu- pointed appellee, ad- purporting simply be a valid will ment ministratrix de bonis non. document has been ad- because the not pursuant peti- order was entered ato probate. mitted by April 21, tion filed the widow on majority refer to 40-423 As the basis for its order the (1961),1 providing non- court recited that letters of adminis- operation of a motor vehicle resident’s tration been issued to the sister deemed Columbia is on June because of a mis- equivalent to an of the Dis- petition, in her statement conception or a mis- attorneys by as his court, trict Commissioners of the true may upon process served fact whom facts. The court so concluded be- growing out of an accident action cause the sister’s contained proceed although expressly has made move 1. O’Sullivan the statute does not provisions provide. But, text, as I so in the to do not indicated desires so. § 423 does not authorize the representa may be that of an administrator for a deceased non- a deceased nonresident motorist tive of resident motorist who left no brought may before the court serv District. Commissioners, on the ice 906 “ allegation upon ‘It Maryland, is well settled in system decedent and and belief that our whence derived, were divorced the time

wife once letters have been death, developed party upon his they whereas to a a misstate- misconception facts, married 1921 and had been ment although they divorced, same were never be revoked and the really separated appointed. had been since entitled thereto consequent misconception reasonable for the court to conclude not established. cretion in think ministration to her. “Bad faith on the except not found court revoking the for the misstatement did Nevertheless, part It was not court, abuse its grant of the sister as to of ad- un- we appointing an administrator. Court was quently, I would affirm. See For these ^[*] Coit, App.D.C. 278 F. » Morris v. t correct tf reasons Foster, I think the District and In re Estate 51 the order App.D.C. Conse- marital status deceased origi- appellee disposition a different nally by the would have been made court respect ad- to letters of

ministratio'n.” demon- requires discussion to facts that, had the uncontroverted strate LINES, to vacate INC., the motion STATES MARINE shown Petitioner, .present known case been judge, the letters of v. granted in have been MARITIME FEDERAL COMMISSION America, the first instance. United States of Respondents. Randall Bockhorst opinion in *7 COMPANY,Inc., ISBRANDTSEN thus: continues Petitioner, contends, however, sister of her letters the revocation FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION specified cause our for a Board) (formerly Federal Maritime Code beyond therefore America, United Respondents, States of court. Inc., Lines, States Marine Intervenor. Section Nos. 16671. probate court shall vides Appeals United States authority grant, and ‘for District of Columbia Circuit. mentioned’ hereinafter causes revoke, administration. Argued Sept. 26, letters of 1962. thereinafter mentioned causes Decided Jan. upon one relied include do Rehearing En Petition Banc But, as Justice Chief case. this Denied Feb. court Shepard stated App.D.C. 576, Emery, 45 Emery v. n < « * * Those causes relate to and con- matters therewith, prevent and do not nected revoking letters court upon issued a mis- assumption of facts.

taken