Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
William D. HOOVER, Alexander Muncaster, and Thomas Morton Gittings, Trustees of the Estate of Rose Keeling Hutchins, Deceased, Appellants, v. Harry WARDMAN, Thomas P. Bones, and James D. Hobbs, 1932 — 59 F.2d 866 · caselaw · US
General
William D. HOOVER, Alexander Muncaster, and Thomas Morton Gittings, Trustees of the Estate of Rose Keeling Hutchins, Deceased, Appellants, v. Harry WARDMAN, Thomas P. Bones, and James D. Hobbs
59 F.2d 866·United States District Court for the District of Columbia·1932
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
William D. HOOVER, Alexander Muncaster, and Thomas Morton Gittings, Trustees of the Estate of Rose Keeling Hutchins, Deceased, Appellants, v. Harry WARDMAN, Thomas P. Bones, and James D. Hobbs.
No. 5473.
Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.
Argued April 11, 1932.
Decided May 31, 1932.
Motion for Rehearing Denied June 10, 1932.
Thos. Morton Gittings, of Washington, D. C., for appellants.
Daniel Thew Wright, of Washington, D. C., for appellees.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB, VAN ORSDEL, and GRONER, Associate Justices.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
This ease was argued and submitted together with Cafritz Construction Co. v. Robert Mudrick and Fredy Mudrick, 61 App. D. C. 189, 59 F.(2d) 864, and involves the same issue this day decided by us therein. Consistently with our decision in that ease, the judgment of the lower court herein is reversed with costs, and this canse is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
ROBB, Associate Justice, dissents.