Fair v. Angus

California Supreme Court

Fair v. Angus

64 P. 1111, 132 Cal. 580, 1901 Cal. LEXIS 1102

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedApril 30, 1901

DocketS.F. Nos. 1155 and 1156.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 64 P. 1111 (Fair v. Angus) 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

Fair v. Angus, 64 P. 1111, 132 Cal. 580, 1901 Cal. LEXIS 1102 (Cal. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

GAROUTTE,J.

—The appeals in this case are taken in an action brought by Charles L. Fair prior to the admission of the will of James G. Fair to probate, against Angus, Crothers, and Goo dfellow individually, and as trustees named in the will, to determine an adverse claim by them to the Lick House property, in San Francisco. Plaintiff made his sisters defendants, under an allegation that he could not obtain their consent to join him as plaintiff. An amended complaint was filed, making as additional defendants the then living infant beneficiaries referred to in the will of James G. Fair. The cause was not brought on for trial until after the admission of the will for probate, and at the trial it was shown that the testator died seised of the property, and that the plaintiff and his two sisters are his heirs at law; that his will was admitted to probate on the 16th of November, 1896, and letters testamentary issued to the defendants Angus, Crothers, and Good-fellow. The court found that the plaintiff and his sisters are the owners in fee-simple absolute of the property described in the complaint; that the defendants Angus, Crothers, ahd Good-fellow have ■ no right or interest therein, either as trustees under said will, or otherwise, and that said minor defendants, or either of them, have no interest therein. Judgment was rendered accordingly. The two appeals in this case are taken by certain of defendants.

In view of the decision this day rendered in Estate of Fair, ante, p. 523, wherein it is held that the estate passed to the heirs by succession, by reason of the invalidity of Fair’s will, we find no practical reason presenting itself why the appeals in this case should be considered in extenso upon the various *582 matters presented by counsel in their briefs. The decision in Estate of Fair is to the effect that neither the trustees nor the beneficiaries take any estate by Fair’s will! This being so, the judgments rendered in these causes and the orders denying the motions for a new trial should be affirmed, and it is so ordered.

McFarland, J., Van Dyke, J., and Henshaw, J., concurred.

Harrison, J., Temple, J., and Beatty, C. J., dissented.

Rehearing denied.

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

GAROUTTE,J.

—The appeals in this case are taken in an action brought by Charles L. Fair prior to the admission of the will of James G. Fair to probate, against Angus, Crothers, and Goo dfellow individually, and as trustees named in the will, to determine an adverse claim by them to the Lick House property, in San Francisco. Plaintiff made his sisters defendants, under an allegation that he could not obtain their consent to join him as plaintiff. An amended complaint was filed, making as additional defendants the then living infant beneficiaries referred to in the will of James G. Fair. The cause was not brought on for trial until after the admission of the will for probate, and at the trial it was shown that the testator died seised of the property, and that the plaintiff and his two sisters are his heirs at law; that his will was admitted to probate on the 16th of November, 1896, and letters testamentary issued to the defendants Angus, Crothers, and Good-fellow. The court found that the plaintiff and his sisters are the owners in fee-simple absolute of the property described in the complaint; that the defendants Angus, Crothers, ahd Good-fellow have ■ no right or interest therein, either as trustees under said will, or otherwise, and that said minor defendants, or either of them, have no interest therein. Judgment was rendered accordingly. The two appeals in this case are taken by certain of defendants.

In view of the decision this day rendered in Estate of Fair, ante, p. 523, wherein it is held that the estate passed to the heirs by succession, by reason of the invalidity of Fair’s will, we find no practical reason presenting itself why the appeals in this case should be considered in extenso upon the various *582 matters presented by counsel in their briefs. The decision in Estate of Fair is to the effect that neither the trustees nor the beneficiaries take any estate by Fair’s will! This being so, the judgments rendered in these causes and the orders denying the motions for a new trial should be affirmed, and it is so ordered.

McFarland, J., Van Dyke, J., and Henshaw, J., concurred.

Harrison, J., Temple, J., and Beatty, C. J., dissented.

Rehearing denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 P. 1111, 132 Cal. 580, 1901 Cal. LEXIS 1102, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fair-v-angus-cal-1901.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack