Estate of Wallace

California Superior Court, San Francisco County

Estate of Wallace

1 Coffey 118

CourtSuperior Court of California, County of San Francisco

DecidedJanuary 28, 1884

DocketNo. 1,198

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Coffey 118 (Estate of Wallace) 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 Wallace, 1 Coffey 118 (Cal. Super. Ct. 1884).

Pincite

Opinion

COFFEY, J.

1. The court is of opinion that the decree of distribution of May 15, 1882, was properly made, and was within the jurisdiction of this court. I cannot assent to the view of the counsel for the petitioner upon this point.

2. Having by that decree disposed of the subject matter, nothing remains within the jurisdiction of this court, except [120]*120to compel obedience to the decree, in case it should have been disobeyed, which is not the case.

3. The petitioner is estopped, as administratrix, by that decree, from complaining of the exercise of a power possessed by the court and invoked upon her own request in behalf of herself as widow, and as guardian of the minor, and by the adult child, and in which, as administratrix, she must be held to have concurred.

No other result can be reached by the court consistently with my opinion of the law or of the principles of equity. Order discharged.

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

COFFEY, J.

1. The court is of opinion that the decree of distribution of May 15, 1882, was properly made, and was within the jurisdiction of this court. I cannot assent to the view of the counsel for the petitioner upon this point.

2. Having by that decree disposed of the subject matter, nothing remains within the jurisdiction of this court, except [120]*120to compel obedience to the decree, in case it should have been disobeyed, which is not the case.

3. The petitioner is estopped, as administratrix, by that decree, from complaining of the exercise of a power possessed by the court and invoked upon her own request in behalf of herself as widow, and as guardian of the minor, and by the adult child, and in which, as administratrix, she must be held to have concurred.

No other result can be reached by the court consistently with my opinion of the law or of the principles of equity. Order discharged.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Coffey 118, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-wallace-calsuppctsf-1884.