Bates v. Ryberg

40 Cal. 463
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 15, 1871
Docket2,647
StatusPublished
Cited by33 cases

This text of 40 Cal. 463 (Bates v. Ryberg) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bates v. Ryberg, 40 Cal. 463 (Cal. 1871).

Opinion

Temple, J.

delivered tbe opinion of tbe Court, Bhodes, Ob. J., CrooKett, J., and Wallace, J., concurring:

Upon tbe application of tbe executor, tbe Probate Court caused tbe proper notice tobe given to all parties interested, and on tbe return day of tbe notice proceeded to distribute tbe estate of tbe deceased among tbe legatees named in tbe will.

Tbe amount distributed is precisely tbat wbicb, upon final settlement, was found in tbe bands of tbe executor, and wbicb, in bis petition, be asked to bave distributed. There is no complaint tbat be is required to pay over more tban be bas, or tbat tbe entire estate bas not been distributed. All claims against tbe estate are paid, and tbe executor does not seem to bave any interest whatever in opposing tbe decree of distribution.

Upon tbe distribution it was found, however, tbat tbe property belonging to tbe estate was insufficient to pay all tbe legacies in full, and tbe executor appeals on tbe ground tbat it was improperly divided between tbe legatees. Tbe only matter complained of is tbat some of tbe legatees are paid more tban they ought to bave received, while others received less tban they were entitled to by tbe terms of tbe will.

Tbe heirs and devisees or legatees interested in an estate are made parties to tbe proceedings for a distribution ; any one of them feeling aggrieved may appeal from tbe final order. Tbe executor, however, does not represent any of these parties, as against tbe others, and if they are satisfied with tbe distribution be cannot complain because some bave [466]*466received less than they are entitled to. He cannot litigate the claims of one set of legatees as against the others at the expense of the estate.

The appeal must be dismissed.

So ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Estate of Goulet
898 P.2d 425 (California Supreme Court, 1995)
Smith v. Esslinger
26 Cal. App. 4th 579 (California Court of Appeal, 1994)
Estate of Kessler
196 P.2d 559 (California Supreme Court, 1948)
Linton v. Walker
196 P.2d 559 (California Supreme Court, 1948)
Cardin v. Apple
92 P.2d 32 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1939)
Iverson v. Johnson
260 N.W. 205 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1935)
In Re Estate of Nelson
260 N.W. 205 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1935)
Estate of Bailey v. Cullen
238 N.W. 845 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1931)
Estate of Sullivan v. Sullivan
229 N.W. 65 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1930)
Agnew v. Agnew
218 N.W. 633 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1928)
Steinberger v. Young
182 P. 303 (California Supreme Court, 1918)
In Re Estate of Ayers
165 P. 528 (California Supreme Court, 1917)
Braeuel v. Reuther
193 S.W. 283 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1917)
Finch, Van Slyck & McConville v. Le Sueur County Co-operative Co.
159 N.W. 826 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1916)
Hebrew Home for Aged Disabled v. Friedman
153 P. 918 (California Supreme Court, 1915)
Rice v. Carey
151 P. 135 (California Supreme Court, 1915)
State ex rel. Sparks v. State Bank & Trust Co.
36 Nev. 526 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1913)
State ex rel. Miller v. People's State Bank
135 N.W. 196 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1912)
Lamar v. Lamar
45 S.E. 498 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1903)
Bruning v. Golden
64 N.E. 657 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1902)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
40 Cal. 463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bates-v-ryberg-cal-1871.