*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 the 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 appellee. Maher, Washington, Mr. Daniel B. guardian litem, for Florence L. ad

Rice, now deceased. SINLAO, Gliceria Ramos Vda De Fahy, Bazelon Circuit UNITED STATES of America incompetent, is Unless widow Sumner G. Administrator of may renounce her husband’s will and Affairs, Appellees. Veterans 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 death 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. Miller 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 filed 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 a cannot contracted be ceremony. no without has been a There remarriage ceremony, and therefore no “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 reconciled 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- conclusive, 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 purpose 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 Gray, 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 rejection. 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, 229 F.2d 27. Cf. Cook issuing long a cheek to her each month as Higley, U.S.App.D.C. v. 238 F.2d remarry. effect, as she did not 41. Even in Wellman provides. pointed so statute As I have out, issuing stopped the Administrator appellant relies, which we said: “We the checks because of his idea that she repeatedly recognized that non- estopped remarriage, was to al- reviewability must be accorded to the though he knew no sort of Administrator’s to decisions as claims.” had in fact occurred. This erroneous conception furnished no may basis for termi- The Administrator cor- of course nating compensation payments, so rect his own error if he sees fit. arbitrary Administrator’s action was an capricious perform plain and statutory duty. refusal to MILLER, Judge WILBUR K. [concurring part dissenting in requested Ad- Sinlao Mrs. When part). sending continue to ministrator agree that Mrs. Sinlao’s suit was checks, monthly was by barred limitation insofar as it pay- original claim for benefits or to recover on the insurance claim and I concerning ments, his decision is which concur to opin- that extent in the court’s claiming the unreviewable. ion. But I respect dissent with to the monthly which issued checks compensation feature. automatically an allowed petition action, of a soldier Her that the Dis- The widow claim. killed sation arbitrary remarried,1 action who has is entitled to trict specified monthly have been treated as an at rates. should therefore mandatory injunction application for a 321. The Administrator requiring to do to such found the statutory duty, compensation, as to which he has her claim clear petition monthly It was not a time some issued checks no discretion. denial of a Administrator’s Later he terminated review the therefor. previous compensation. His claim compensation had payment of statutorily required condi- been existed, conditions and those tions admittedly changed: Mrs. Sin- had not not re- who had

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.