The Washington times., 1934-05-09


Thomas johnson, Annie Good
win, James T. Holmes, Joseph E.
Holmes ct al, appellees. No.
6074, on appeal from the Su-
preme Court of the District of
Columbia.
George c. Gertman, for ap-
pellant; Walter C. Clephane, j.
Wilmer Latimer, and Gilbert l..
Hall for appellees Decided
April %.
Chief Justice Martin delivered
the following opinion:
1t appears that in December,
1897, Silas Holmes, a resident
of the District of Columbia, died
teState and his last will was
duly admitted to record. He was
survived by his widow, Annie
Holmes, and by a daughter, Vir-
ginia Allen. The appellant,
Lorenzo Allen, is a great-grand-
son of decedent, born after de-
cedents death, and is his only
surviving descendant and next
of kin. Decedent was also sur
vived by a brother, Keziah Reed
and by the descendants of de-
ceased brothers and sisters.
The estate left by decedent
consisted almost exclusively of a
certain valuable piece Of real
estate, improved by a dwelling
house, sitLa+e in the city of
Washington, D. c., and decedent
undertook to dispose of it by the
provisions of his will. However,
after the death of decedent's
widow and daughter, a dispute
arose between the great-grand-
son of decedent and decedent's
collateral kindred as to the
proper Interpretation of the will,
each side claiming to be the ex-
elusive owners of the property,
either by devise or inheritance.
This dispute gave rise to four
suits between the parties in the
Supreme Court of the District
of Columbia, three of which were
appealed to this court, and one
was reviewed by the Supreme
Court of the United States.
Hereinafter when we speak Of
these cases we shall refer to the
great-grandson as the appellant
and the collateral kindred as the
appellees, that being their posi-
tion in the present appeal.
The first of the cases in the
Supreme Court of the District of
Columbia was an interpleader
suit in which the contestants
were made parties. This was be-
gun in August, 1922, by one
Walker, a real estate agent, who
had collected and still had rents
arising from the property. The
prayer of his bill was that the
court should hear and determine
the conflicting claims of the par
ties as to the ownership of the
property, and by its decree enable
him to pay the money in his
possession to the persons entitled
to receive it. In July, 1925, a
decree was entered in the case
whereby it was held that under
a proper construction of dece-
dents will the property was de-
vised to the present appellees and
not to the appellant herein.
This case was duly appealed to
this court, without supersedeas,
and on June /, 1926, while the
appeal was pending and not yet
heard or decided by the court,
the appellees as plaintiffs, rely
ing upon the decision in the
lower court, commenced an action
IN ejectment in that court
against the appellant as de-
fendant to secure possession of
the property. In July, 1928,
Judgment for possession in behalf
OF the appellees was entered by
the court in the ejectment case,
and the judgment thereon was
executed. No appeal was ever
taken from this judgment.
In January, 1927, a date sub
sequent to the judgment for an.
pellees in the ejectment case,
THIS court reversed the decision
OF the Supreme Court Of the Dis
tr1ct of Columbia entered in the
lnterpleader case, which had been
pending upon appeal in the
and held that the ap-
pellant herein was the true owner
OF the property. A mandate
thereupon was issued to the
lower court to carry our decision
into effect. Allen VS.. Reed, 81
app. D. c. 78; II F. (2d) 666,
In December 1927, the appellant
relying upon this decree as ALL
thority, brought an action in eject.
ment in the Supreme Court of
the District of Columbia against
the appellees to recover possession
OF the property. In this case the
appellees pleaded the final 1udg.
ment rendered in their favor in
the prior ejectment case as res
Judlcata Of the issue. The trial
court sustained the plea and
entered judgment against appel
liant. An appeal from the iudg.
ment was taken to this court and
we reversed it. AS explanatory
OF our decision we may quote the
following extract taken from it:
The judgment in the first eject
men1 proceeding was dependent
entirely upon the title acquired
through the decree of the Supreme
Court of the District of Columbia,
lRendered in the interpleader