Estate of Lomasney

California Court of Appeal

Estate of Lomasney

64 P.2d 1138, 19 Cal. App. 2d 223, 1937 Cal. App. LEXIS 402

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedFebruary 11, 1937

DocketCiv. 11187

StatusPublished

This text of 64 P.2d 1138 (Estate of Lomasney) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Estate of Lomasney, 64 P.2d 1138, 19 Cal. App. 2d 223, 1937 Cal. App. LEXIS 402 (Cal. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

DORAN, J.

This is an action for the removal of an executor of an estate that had been in probate for about eight years *224 At the conclusion of the trial of the action, which had required several days, the court made its order removing the executor, which order contained, in part, the following: ‘‘ And the court having found from said testimony that the said executor had collected considerable sums of money, which money was the property of said estate, and that said executor had made no accounting for said moneys, and the court having further found that the said executor was neglecting the said property belonging to the estate and mismanaging the same; ...”

The decisive questions involved in the appeal are: whether the court abused its discretion, and whether there is evidence to support the findings in the order.

The petition for removal of the executor was sufficient in form and substance, and appellant’s claim that there is no evidence to support the order is refuted by the record; there is no merit in appellant’s contention that the court abused its discretion. Other questions raised in the appeal are unimportant and unprejudicial.

Judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.

Houser, P. J., and York, J., concurred.

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

DORAN, J.

This is an action for the removal of an executor of an estate that had been in probate for about eight years *224 At the conclusion of the trial of the action, which had required several days, the court made its order removing the executor, which order contained, in part, the following: ‘‘ And the court having found from said testimony that the said executor had collected considerable sums of money, which money was the property of said estate, and that said executor had made no accounting for said moneys, and the court having further found that the said executor was neglecting the said property belonging to the estate and mismanaging the same; ...”

The decisive questions involved in the appeal are: whether the court abused its discretion, and whether there is evidence to support the findings in the order.

The petition for removal of the executor was sufficient in form and substance, and appellant’s claim that there is no evidence to support the order is refuted by the record; there is no merit in appellant’s contention that the court abused its discretion. Other questions raised in the appeal are unimportant and unprejudicial.

Judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.

Houser, P. J., and York, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 P.2d 1138, 19 Cal. App. 2d 223, 1937 Cal. App. LEXIS 402, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-lomasney-calctapp-1937.