Home/California Court of Appeal/Fuller v. Fuller

Fuller v. Fuller

229 Cal. App. 2d 532, 40 Cal. Rptr. 393, 1964 Cal. App. LEXIS 1014
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedSeptember 3, 1964
DocketCiv. 10862
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 229 Cal. App. 2d 532 (Fuller v. Fuller) 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
Fuller v. Fuller, 229 Cal. App. 2d 532, 40 Cal. Rptr. 393, 1964 Cal. App. LEXIS 1014 (Cal. Ct. App. 1964).

Opinion

PIERCE, P. J.

This proceeding was brought to determine the identity of the heirs of Daniel Fuller, deceased, and the shares which each takes of certain real property under his will. Two of twenty-five persons affected have appealed from the distribution decreed by the trial court.

The decedent by paragraph 3 of his will provided:

“Thirdly, I give and bequeath and devise the use of all of my real estate to my children ... so long as any of said children are living.
“After the death of the last survivor of them I direct that said real estate be divided among the heirs of my said children, according to the laws of the State of California, to be theirs absolutely. ’ ’

The date of this will is not before us. Daniel died in 1905. His heirs at law were five sons and a daughter. The last survivor of these children, Frederick, died July 10, 1961. The real property involved is two quarter sections in Shasta County, excluding therefrom an undescribed portion condemned by the state.

Daniel’s six children left heirs at law living on July 10, 1961, representing several generations. These heirs are shown on a chart which we attach for convenience. [See next page.]

The petitioners are Marcus D. Fuller and Harold Hays, grandsons of the testator.

The controversy here is (1) whether the surviving widows of two of Daniel's sons (Ruth, widow of Archibald; Ethyl, *536 widow of Frederick—the last surviving son) inherit under the will; and (2) if so, how much?

*535

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

Related

Estate of Moulton
63 Cal. App. 3d 1 (California Court of Appeal, 1976)
Morse v. Beddoe
63 Cal. App. 3d 1 (California Court of Appeal, 1976)
Estate of Hampton
262 Cal. App. 2d 532 (California Court of Appeal, 1968)
Wells Fargo Bank v. Clark
262 Cal. App. 2d 532 (California Court of Appeal, 1968)
Estate of Robinson
262 Cal. App. 2d 32 (California Court of Appeal, 1968)
Haug v. Robinson Padgett
262 Cal. App. 2d 32 (California Court of Appeal, 1968)
Estate of McKenzie
246 Cal. App. 2d 740 (California Court of Appeal, 1966)
United California Bank v. Leonard
246 Cal. App. 2d 740 (California Court of Appeal, 1966)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
229 Cal. App. 2d 532, 40 Cal. Rptr. 393, 1964 Cal. App. LEXIS 1014, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fuller-v-fuller-calctapp-1964.