145 F.2d 856 | D.C. Cir. | 1944
This is an appeal from an order of the District Court, sitting as, a Probate Court,
The Probate Court is empowered “to grant and, for any of the causes hereinafter mentioned, to revoke letters testamentary, letters of administration * * *,”
Moreover, the probate statutes of the District of Columbia are largely copied from those of Maryland.
Appellant’s claims will of course be critically examined by the Probate Court and will not be allowed unless the court is satisfied that they are just.
Reversed.
D.C.Code 1940, §§ 11 — 501 to 11 — 520.
D.C.Code 1940, § 18 — 515.
D.C.Code 1940, § 11 — 504.
Miniggio v. Hutchins, 43 App.D.C. 117; Richardson v. Daggett, 24 App.D.C. 440; Cook v. Speare, 13 App.D.C. 446, 451; Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. McQuade, 74 App.D.C. 383, 385, 123 F.2d 337.
D.C.Code 1940, § 11 — 512.
Hawley v. Hawley, 72 App.D.C. 357, 358, 114 F.2d 505, 506.
§§ 20 — 216, 20 — 201, 20 — 103.
Clawans v. Sheetz, 67 App.D.C. 366, 92 F.2d 517; Watkins v. Rives, 75 U.S. App.D.C. 109, 125 F.2d 33.
Md.Ann.Code 1939, art. 93, sec. 103; Code 1888, art. 93, sec. 98.
Semmes v. Magruder, 10 Md. 242; Spencer v. Spencer, 4 Md.Ch. 456, 465; Brown v. Stewart, 4 Md.Ch. 368, 374; State, Use of Stevenson, v. Reigart, Md., 1 Gill 1, 32, 39 Am.Dec. 628.
Carolene Products Co. v. United States, 65 S.Ct. 1.
D.C.Code, 1940, § 18 — 512. Cf. Yingling v. Hesson, 16 Md. 112, 120; Bowling v. Lamar, Md., 1 Gill 358, 360, 363.
144 A.L.R. 940, 990, 994; L.R.A. 1915B, 1016, 1019-1039.