CAIN
v.
HUTSON ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the mortgagor's administrator was a necessary party to the suit for an accounting.
Appellees were mortgagees who collected over $12,000 on a $6,800 mortgage. The mortgagor's estate was being administered in Pennsylvania, and his admi…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Suit For Accounting cases and more on FLexlaw
EDGERTON, Associate Justice.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the District Court dismissing appellant’s suit.
Appellees were mortgagees under a bond and mortgage dated June 23, 1932, in the principal sum of $6,800. The mortgage covered real estate in Pennsylvania, and was executed there by Cecil B. Pascoe. By May 10, 1939, when this complaint was filed, appellees had collected over $12,000. This is a suit for an accounting of the sums collected.
Pascoe, the mortgagor, died a resident of Pennsylvania, where his estate is being administered. His administrator is not a party to this suit.1 Plaintiff-appellant is the executrix of the estate of the mortgagor’s mother, now deceased, who was his sole heir and next of kin. Under the laws of both the District of 'Columbia2 and Pennsylvania3 the mortgagor’s administrator was a necessary party to this suit. The complaint was rightly dismissed.
Affirmed.
His original administrators were named as defendants, but were not served with process and did not appear. D.C.Code 1940, §§ 20 — 501, 20-505; Kashouty v. Deep, — App.D. C. —, 126 F. 2d 233.
Purdon’s Penn.Stat.Ann., Tit. 20, § 772, as amended July 2, 1937, P.L. 2755, § 2; Craig v. Blau, 288 Pa. 547, 136 A. 860.