In re Estate of Gasq

42 Cal. 288
California Supreme Court·Decided October 15, 1871·No. No. 2,999·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

By the Court, Temple, J.:

This Court will not reverse the ruling of the Probate Court in fixing the amount of compensation, which it would he proper to allow the Administrator in payment of counsel in the settlement of the estate, unless there is a plain abuse of discretion. Such matters are peculiarly within the knowledge of the Probate Judge, and it is very difficult for this Court to form any satisfactory conclusion upon the subject.

It is found that the Administrator had not kept the funds of the estate separate from his own money, but had used them for his own purposes. He was, therefore, properly chargeable with interest. (Utica Ins. Co. v. Lynch, 11 Paige, 525.)

Order affirmed.

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

In re Estate of Gasq, 42 Cal. 288 (Cal. 1871).

42 Cal. 288 (In re Estate of Gasq) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Busenbark v. Smith
97 P.2d 533 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1940)
In Re the Estate of O'Reilly
231 P. 916 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1925)
Briggs v. Breen
56 P. 633 (California Supreme Court, 1899)
Estate of Blythe
1 Coffey 115 (California Superior Court, San Francisco County, 1885)