Herrmann v. Rogers, 572 (1959)
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Number: 572
Visitors: 12
Judges: Per Curiam
Filed: Jan. 26, 1959
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: 358 U.S. 332 (1959) HERRMANN, TRUSTEE, v. ROGERS, ATTORNEY GENERAL. No. 572. Supreme Court of United States. Decided January 26, 1959. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Burton K. Wheeler and Robert G. Seaks for petitioner. Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Townsend, George B. Searls and Irwin A. Seibel for respondent. PER CURIAM. The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Summary: 358 U.S. 332 (1959) HERRMANN, TRUSTEE, v. ROGERS, ATTORNEY GENERAL. No. 572. Supreme Court of United States. Decided January 26, 1959. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Burton K. Wheeler and Robert G. Seaks for petitioner. Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Townsend, George B. Searls and Irwin A. Seibel for respondent. PER CURIAM. The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is ..
More
358 U.S. 332 (1959)
HERRMANN, TRUSTEE,
v.
ROGERS, ATTORNEY GENERAL.
No. 572.
Supreme Court of United States.
Decided January 26, 1959.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT.
Burton K. Wheeler and Robert G. Seaks for petitioner.
Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Townsend, George B. Searls and Irwin A. Seibel for respondent.
PER CURIAM.
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the cause is remanded to it, to consider whether, under the law of property of Idaho, it was possible, after the time of the making of the conveyance, for any person other than the named beneficiaries of the trust to acquire a property interest in it (other than through a named beneficiary), and, in the light of its determination as to this, to reconsider its holding that respondent was entitled to all the trust funds remaining in the hands of the trustee.
Source: CourtListener
