*1 Phillips, Mead v. 825, A.L.R. present case does question court, involve the whether guardian litem, neither, ad had authority, that for the guardian agreed provision have that the should not incompe- be renounced. The tent widow’s administrator has no such authority, because thе widow herself had “right” no such Hill, C., Washington, when died. Mr. she Vivian O. D. Talmadge Thorne, with whom Mr. brief, for D. Washing- Mooers, Jr., Mr. Edwin A.
ton, C.,D. with whom Mr. Edwin P.
Marmorstone, Washington, C.,D. was on apрellee. Maher, Washington, Mr. Daniel B. guardian litem, for Florence L. ad
Rice, now deceased. SINLAO, Gliceria Ramos Vda De Fahy, Bаzelon Circuit UNITED STATES of America incompetent, is Unless widow Sumner G. Administrator of may renounce her husband’s will and Affairs, Appellees. Veterаns take what she would taken he had (1951) died intestate. D.C.Code 18- present case, 211. before and Rice, also after the death of Florence 16, incompetent guardians 1959. whom guardians appointed, ad litem were Decided Nov. provision concluded that for her in As Nov. Amended accepted. her husband’s will should be After the death Dis- expressed agreement trict Court its view and entered an order
that ingly. accord- appeals
The widow’s administrator order. He contends that be- cause, 20-202, D.C.Code required give he was bond to admin- money, goods, chattels,
istrator “all the
rights, and credits of the deceased * * * ”, it is for him to elect whether accept renounce husband’s will. held in We 1943 that after the deаth incompetent widow,
of an the District authority “in her behalf” to elect whether Miller, Judge, for her in Wilbur K. her husband’s will part. renounced. sented *2 George Doub and Messrs. Oliver C. Gasch, Atty., U. S. Morton Hollander Dept. Schiff, Attys.,
and Peter H. Justice, appellees. on were the brief for Wilbur K. Millеr Danaher,
Appellant decision review of a of Veterans Affairs Administrator terminating payments of death sation and National Service Life Insur- Benefits stat- ance under ute.1 The shortly appel- claims after the death husband, Army private, but lant’s Appellant filеd ceased in 1948. suit District complaint. missed the rightly held that suit
The court
be
on
claim was barred
the insurance
brought
re
cause not
quired
within the time
namely
statute,
“within six
right
years
for which
after the
accrued
”
**
*
claim is made.
U.S.C.
784(b).
appellant has remar
But unless
ried,
compensa
she is entitled to death
payments.
“purported
A
remar
tion
riage”,
“void”,
would
terminate
if
rights.
her
continuously
Philippines,
lived
has
where а
cannot
contracted
be
ceremony.
no
without
has been
a
There
remarriage
ceremony, and therefore nо
“purported”
“void”
unless
one.
Administrator ceased
on
theory
that because
represented
man,
with a
and had
lived
wife,
“estopped
herself
as
remarriage”.
deny
Since there is no
showing
Administrator or the
damaged by
States has been
United
reli
represen
appellant’s
conduct or
ance
O’Donoghue, Washington,
Mr. Ross
tation,
there would be
basis for a
Mary Connelly,
whom Miss
with
finding
estoppel,
even if we were to
D. was on the
might
in some
assume that widow
cir
estopped cumstances
Shapiro, Atty.
right.
Dept.
statutory
Mr. Howard E.
of her
The Administra
appellees.
Atty.
Justice,
Asst.
Gen.
tor’s
321, 322;
101(3),
amended,
§§
Stat.
as
802(d)
Life Insurance
of the National
Act
be reconcilеd
the under the
cannot
of mistaken
Congress
expressed.
that, by
conduct,
intention
has
notion
her immoral
“estopped
widow was
remar-
provided, with
But
has
riage,” although
he admitted
exceptions
relevant to the
*3
had not in fact occurred.
law
Common
claim,
the
tion
that “the decisions of
recognized
Philip-
is not
in the
any question
law
Administrator on
of
pines where Mrs. Sinlao lived.
concerning
or fact
for benefits
a claim
any
administered
This court
under
law
affirms the District Court’s
by
jurisdiction
denial
Administration shall be
of
to review the Ad-
cоnclusive,
stopping
pay-
final and
of
and no other
ministrator’s action in
any
ficial or
United States ments because
in 38
of
of the
jurisdiction
power
211(a)
shall have
any
to review
that “the
of
decisions
211(a)
any question
such
decision.” 38 U.S.C.A.
Administrator on
of
concerning
рurpose
law or fact
was the
of
a claim for bene-
[the]
“It
payments”
possibility
judi
final,
fits or
statute to remove the
conclu-
of
shall be
sive and
cial relief
Ad
unreviewable.
even if the action
arbitrary
caprici
ministrator was
and
majority speak
Adminis-
“The
Grаy,
U.S.App.D.C.
ous.” Hahn v.
92
appellant’s compen-
trator’s
F.2d
Therefore
Strictly speaking,
sation claim.”
there
rightly
the District Court
it
held
rejеction.
was no
The Administrator’s
jurisdiction
respect
in
to the
allowance of the
Longernecker Higley,
tion claim.
v.
placed upon
duty
him
U.S.App.D.C.144,
lao was still a circumstances, I In these think married. termination Administrator’s
the payments conduct— of immoral statutory ground for-
which is not a judicial insulated feiture —is not *4 finality provision 211(a). The distinction is a
U.S.C. § valid; one, but I think it is close finality liberally con- statute should be in favor of the can- pro-
strued not believe intended prevent review of the Admin-
vision to termi-
istrator’s unwarranted action in nating payments correctly
he had allowed. COMPANY,
ADMIRAL Incorporated, al., Appellees.
Ernest A. THOMAS et
Decided Nov. 1959.