Ethel May Bishop, Adm'x, C.T.A. Of the Est. of Cory Bishop, Deceased v. Est. of C. R. Vose, Deceased, Alfred M. Schaffer, Executors, 264 F.2d 244 (3rd Cir. 1959). · Go Syfert
Ethel May Bishop, Adm'x, C.T.A. Of the Est. of Cory Bishop, Deceased v. Est. of C. R. Vose, Deceased, Alfred M. Schaffer, Executors, 264 F.2d 244 (3rd Cir. 1959). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
3 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Sankin v. 5410 Connecticut Avenue Corporation (dcd, 1968-01-18)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Sankin v. 5410 Connecticut Avenue Corporation
D.D.C. · 1968 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bishop v. Vose’s Estate, 162 F.Supp. 92 (D.Virgin Is.1958), aff’d, 264 F.2d 244 (3rd Cir. 1959), Black and White Cabs of St.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
ETHEL MAY BISHOP, Administratrix, C.T.A. of the Estate of Cory Bishop, Deceased, Appellant
v.
ESTATE OF C. R. VOSE, Deceased, ALFRED M. SCHAFFER, Et Al., Executors, Respondents
12723.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Mar 2, 1959.
264 F.2d 244
Croxton Williams, Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, Virgin Islands, for appellant, William W. Bailey, Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, Virgin Islands, for respondents
Magruder, Woodbury, Hastie.
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM

Cory Bishop and C. R. Vose, owners of all of the stock of a corporation, were mutually bound by an agreement providing that in the event of the death of either of them “the survivor . . . shall have the right [for a limited time] to purchase from decedent’s estate his stock. . . .” By its terms this agreement was to “operate for the benefit of the stockholders and their respective executors, [and] administrators. . . .” Bishop died first, and Vose died shortly thereafter. In the present proceeding the administratrix of Bishop is asking the court to extend the time within which she may exercise the privilege of stock purchase which she claims under the above quoted agreement. The District Court dismissed the petition without receiving testimony.

The action of the District Court was clearly correct. The agreement provided explicitly and without ambiguity that as between the stockholders the privilege of acquiring the stock of the other should be accorded to the “survivor”. Whether a “survivor” had to exercise the option personally, or whether his executor or administrator could do so after his death, we need not and do not decide. For Bishop did not survive Vose. Therefore, the situation never arose under which Bishop, or anyone claiming in his interest, could assert a right to purchase the Vose stock.

In the opinion of the District Court there is some mention of an effort of Vose to purchase the Bishop stock from the Bishop estate. Apparently that matter is in controversy in a separate proceeding. Certainly, it is not in issue here. It is neither adjudicated nor to be prejudiced by anything said about it in this proceeding.

The judgment will be affirmed.