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.
Katharine W. KITTS et al.. Appellants, v. James HANNA, Administrator of Estate of Frank W. Wallace, Deceased, et al., Appellees, 1928 — 29 F.2d 1013 · caselaw · US
General
Katharine W. KITTS et al.. Appellants, v. James HANNA, Administrator of Estate of Frank W. Wallace, Deceased, et al., Appellees
29 F.2d 1013·United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·1928
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
Katharine W. KITTS et al.. Appellants, v. James HANNA, Administrator of Estate of Frank W. Wallace, Deceased, et al., Appel-lees.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
December 10, 1928.
No. 3863.
Benjamin H. Ludlow, and Powell, Lud-low & Schaeffer, all of Philadelphia, Pa., for appellants.
Kingsley Montgomery and J. H. Ward Hinkson, both of Chester, Pa., for appellee Cambridge Trust Co.
E. A. Howell, of Chester, Pa., for appellee Hanna,
Before BUFFINGTON, WOOLLEY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
On the question whether the court below was justified in dismissing this bill on the ground of laches, we find ourselves in complete accord therewith. Its decree is therefore affirmed. See authorities on the subject of laches quoted in Hemmick v. Standard Oil Co. (C. C. A.) 91 F. 334.