Case Name: Charles R. HANNAN, Jr., and Hazel Hannan Van Brunt, Appellants, v. Matthew SLUSH, Security Trust Company, Luella Hannan, Guy S. Greene, Clay A. Greene, Children's Aid Society of Detroit, Michigan, and Frank E. Hannan, Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1924-07-03
Citations: 299 F. 1022
Docket Number: No. 3908
Parties: Charles R. HANNAN, Jr., and Hazel Hannan Van Brunt, Appellants, v. Matthew SLUSH, Security Trust Company, Luella Hannan, Guy S. Greene, Clay A. Greene, Children’s Aid Society of Detroit, Michigan, and Frank E. Hannan, Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 299
Pages: 1022–1022

Head Matter:
Charles R. HANNAN, Jr., and Hazel Hannan Van Brunt, Appellants, v. Matthew SLUSH, Security Trust Company, Luella Hannan, Guy S. Greene, Clay A. Greene, Children’s Aid Society of Detroit, Michigan, and Frank E. Hannan, Appellees.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
July 3, 1924.)
No. 3908.
Appeal from the District Court of the United-States for the Eastern District of Michigan; Arthur J Tuttle, Judge.
John R. Rood, of Detroit, Mich., and Addison G. Kistle, of Council Bluffs, Iowa (George S. Wright, of Council Bluffs, Iowa, on the brief), for appellants.
Alfred Lucking and Thomas G. Long, both of Detroit, Mich. (Lucking, Helfman, Lucking & Hanlon, Stevenson, Carpenter, Butzel & Backus, and William L. Carpenter, all of Detroit, Mich., on the brief), for appellees.
Before DENISON, MACK, and DONAHUE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM?
Except that here the plaintiffs are children of a deceased brother, instead of being the brother of William W. Hannan, deceased, this case is identical with that of Frank E. Hannan v. Greene et al., 199 N. W. 426, decided by the Supreme Court of the state of Michigan jointly with the appeal of Prank E. Hannan, in the Matter of the Estate of William W. Hannan, Deceased, 199 N. W. 423, opinion filed on June 18, 1924. We concur fully in the conclusions therein reached and in the reasons therefor as therein expressed. While the decree of the District Court (283 Fed. 211) does not recite that the dismissal was for want of jurisdiction, it is clear from the accompanying opinion that it was dismissed on this ground. We have heretofore held that there was jurisdiction, and at the request of all parties we have considered the case on its merits. The decree of dismissal will therefore be modified, so as to show that the bill is dismissed for want of equity, and, as modified, it is affirmed.