TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Kashouty v. Deep

Kashouty v. Deep, 126 F.2d 233 (D.C. Cir. 1942)
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
March 2, 1942
Docket
No. 7856
Judges
Edgerton
Citations
126 F.2d 23375 U.S. App. D.C. 2591942 U.S. App. LEXIS 4110

Opinion of the Court — Edgerton

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

EDGERTON, Associate Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment which avoids a deed of real property. The suit was brought by the appellees, who were heirs of the grantor, Fannie Deep, deceased, and were also the chief beneficiaries of her will. The defendant, appellant Ka-shouty, a nephew of Mrs. Deep, was the grantee in the deed. The trial court found that he procured the deed by undue influence.

The majority of the court think the evidence shows, not undue influence, but merely that the deceased was an elderly woman, who lived in appellant’s home, and that appellant and his family were kind to her. 1 However that may be, we must reverse, since the complaint shows that the deceased left a will which has been filed with the Register of Wills, though not yet proved, and which, unless invalid, requires the presence of the named executor as a plaintiff in this suit. The District Code provides: “Executors and administrators shall have full power and authority to commence and prosecute any personal action at law or in equity which the testator or intestate might have commenced and prosecuted, except actions for injuries to the person or to the reputation * *." 2 If the deed was procured by undue influence, and the deceased left a valid will, her executor has a right to avoid it. Moreover, the will directs the executor to sell the real property and distribute the proceeds, together with the personal property. Such a will amounts to a devise of real property, as well as a bequest of personal property, to *234 the executor, with the result that nothing descends to the heirs or next of kin. 3 We cannot presume that the will is invalid, Until it is proved to be so, in proceedings brought for that purpose in accordance with the statute, the heirs and next of kin have no standing to maintain this suit.

Reversed.

Cf. Madre v. Gaskins, 39 App.D.C. 19 ; Gibson v. Collins, 55 App.D.C. 262 , 4 F.2d 874 .

D.C.Code (1940), § 20-501. Cf. § 20-310.

Griffith v. Stewart, 31 App.D.C. 29, 34 , affirmed Stewart v. Griffith, 217 U.S. 323, 332 , 30 S.Ct. 528 , 54 L.Ed. 782 , 19 Ann.Cas. 639. Cf. D.C.Code (1940), § 12-101.

How later courts describe this case

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

1942: 11950: 31952: 119422026peak 1950 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Thomas v. Doyle187 F.2d 207 (D.C. Cir. 1950)
  2. Norris v. Harrison198 F.2d 953 (D.C. Cir. 1952)
  3. Ramsey v. Curtis182 F.2d 687 (D.C. Cir. 1950)
  4. Holt v. Holt61 S.E.2d 448 (N.C. 1950)
  5. Cain v. Hutson127 F.2d 19 (D.C. Cir. 1942)

Most recent

  1. Norris v. Harrison198 F.2d 953 (D.C. Cir. 1952)
  2. Thomas v. Doyle187 F.2d 207 (D.C. Cir. 1950)
  3. Holt v. Holt61 S.E.2d 448 (N.C. 1950)
  4. Ramsey v. Curtis182 F.2d 687 (D.C. Cir. 1950)
  5. Cain v. Hutson127 F.2d 19 (D.C. Cir. 1942)

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 4

DepthCaseCited by
Stewart v. Griffith ex rel. Ball, 217 U.S. 323 (1910) 62
Gibson v. Collins, 4 F.2d 874 (D.C. Cir. 1925) 5
Griffith v. Stewart, 31 App. D.C. 29 (D.C. Cir. 1908) 3
Madre v. Gaskins, 39 App. D.C. 19 (D.C. Cir. 1912) 1

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