Estate of Treweek

California Superior Court, San Francisco County

Estate of Treweek

1 Coffey 132

CourtSuperior Court of California, County of San Francisco

DecidedNovember 11, 1885

DocketNo. 2,159

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Coffey 132 (Estate of Treweek) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Estate of Treweek, 1 Coffey 132 (Cal. Super. Ct. 1885).

Pincite

Opinion

COFFEY, J.

The executor is an officer of the court, and as such responsible to the court for failure to comply with the terms of the decree of distribution, which was final and conclusive. It was his duty to make payment as therein directed: Code Civ. Proc. 1209, 1666, 1721, 1962; Estate of Taylor, Myr. 160; Estate of Smith, 53 Cal. 208; Estate of Cohn, 55 Cal. 193; Estate of Lacoste, Myr. 68.

The other authorities cited and considered do not affect the adjudications in this court and state, which seem to me conclusive against respondent. Demurrer sustained, ten days to amend.

When a Decree of Distribution is Made, it becomes the duty of the executor or administrator to deliver the estate to the parties designated by the court: McCabe v. Healy, 138 Cal. 81, 90, 70 Pac. 1008. No special or express order to that effect is authorized or required. Upon the entry of the decree, the law fixes this duty on him. He still remains an officer of the court, subject to its jurisdiction, until his final discharge; and hence the court has authority, if necessary, to compel him, by punishment as for a contempt, to make a delivery to the distributees of their respective shares: Ex parte Smith, 53 Cal. 204; Wheeler v. Bolton, 54 Cal. 302; Estate of Kennedy, 129 Cal. 384, 62 Pac. 64; Estate of Cohn, 55 Cal. 193; McLaughlin v. Barnes, 12 Wash. 373, 41 Pac. 62. And he can take no appeal from an order adjudging him in contempt, and committing him to jail until he complies with the decree: Estate of Wittmeier, 118 Cal. 255, 50 Pac. 393.

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

COFFEY, J.

The executor is an officer of the court, and as such responsible to the court for failure to comply with the terms of the decree of distribution, which was final and conclusive. It was his duty to make payment as therein directed: Code Civ. Proc. 1209, 1666, 1721, 1962; Estate of Taylor, Myr. 160; Estate of Smith, 53 Cal. 208; Estate of Cohn, 55 Cal. 193; Estate of Lacoste, Myr. 68.

The other authorities cited and considered do not affect the adjudications in this court and state, which seem to me conclusive against respondent. Demurrer sustained, ten days to amend.

When a Decree of Distribution is Made, it becomes the duty of the executor or administrator to deliver the estate to the parties designated by the court: McCabe v. Healy, 138 Cal. 81, 90, 70 Pac. 1008. No special or express order to that effect is authorized or required. Upon the entry of the decree, the law fixes this duty on him. He still remains an officer of the court, subject to its jurisdiction, until his final discharge; and hence the court has authority, if necessary, to compel him, by punishment as for a contempt, to make a delivery to the distributees of their respective shares: Ex parte Smith, 53 Cal. 204; Wheeler v. Bolton, 54 Cal. 302; Estate of Kennedy, 129 Cal. 384, 62 Pac. 64; Estate of Cohn, 55 Cal. 193; McLaughlin v. Barnes, 12 Wash. 373, 41 Pac. 62. And he can take no appeal from an order adjudging him in contempt, and committing him to jail until he complies with the decree: Estate of Wittmeier, 118 Cal. 255, 50 Pac. 393.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Coffey 132, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-treweek-calsuppctsf-1885.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack