TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Mary L. Nicol and Frances Nicol McKone v. Bruce Baird, President, National Savings and Trust Company, Estate of Frederick Edgar Johnston

Mary L. NICOL and Frances Nicol McKone, Appellants, v. Bruce BAIRD, President, National Savings and Trust Company, Executor, Estate of Frederick Edgar Johnston, Appellee

Nicol v. Baird, 234 F.2d 691 (D.C. Cir. 1956)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
June 7, 1956
Docket
No. 12997_1
Judges
Edgerton, Per Curiam, Prettyman, Washington
Citations
234 F.2d 69198 U.S. App. D.C. 2561956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3769

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

The caption of the complaint herein named as defendant— “Bruce Baird, President National Savings and Trust Co., Executor Estate of Frederick Edgar Johnston 15th St. and New York Ave. N. W. Washington, D. C.”

The National Savings and Trust Com-any, whose President is Mr. Baird, was in fact the Executor of the Estate of Frederick Edgar Johnston, and the body of the complaint sought relief against that estate. Service of the summons and complaint was made on a Vice President of the Trust Company. Mr. Baird moved to dismiss the action on the ground that “he is not an executor of the estate of Frederick Edgar Johnston, deceased, and therefore he is not the proper party defendant.” Plaintiif then moved to amend the summons and complaint to name as defendant the “National Savings & Trust Co., Executor.” The District Court dismissed the action in its entirety, and denied the motion to amend as being moot. This appeal followed.

Under the circumstances, the court could properly dismiss the complaint as to Mr. Baird personally; his name nowhere appears in the body of the complaint, and appellant does not urge that dismissal as to him was error. But we think the court erred in dismissing the entire action. The Trust Company had been served with a complaint which demanded relief against it in its capacity as executor. Evidently on the theory that it was not a party, it made no mo *692 tion to quash or to dismiss. We think it was a party, and no good reason here appears for dismissing the action against it.

The judgment of the District Court must therefore be vacated and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

So ordered.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1957: 11988: 12018: 119572026peak 1957 · 1

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list