In re Estate of Kimberly

32 P. 234, 97 Cal. 281, 1893 Cal. LEXIS 531
California Supreme Court·Decided February 9, 1893·No. No. 19082·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

De Haven, J.

Appeal from an order refusing to set aside a homestead for the widow and minor children of deceased out of property claimed to belong to the estate of the deceased, and inventoried as such.

In refusing to set aside a homestead for the widow and minor children of deceased, the court erred. The question of the validity of the adverse title claimed by the contestants to an undivided interest in the property sought to be set apart as a homestead is one not proper to be litigated in this proceeding. (In re Groome, 94 Cal. 69; Estate of Burton, 63 Cal. 36.) Whether the contestants acquired, by virtue of the foreclosure proceedings referred to in the findings of the court, any interest in the land described in the petition for homestead must be determined in some appropriate action brought for the purpose of settling that question. The question is not involved here, and we express no opinion in relation to it.

Order reversed.

Fitzgerald, J., and McFarland, J., concurred.

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

In re Estate of Kimberly, 32 P. 234, 97 Cal. 281, 1893 Cal. LEXIS 531 (Cal. 1893).

32 P. 234 (In re Estate of Kimberly) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Tarman v. Pierce
1934 OK 335 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1934)
Barkley v. Banque Belge Pour L'Etranger
267 P. 148 (California Court of Appeal, 1928)
In Re Estate of Niccolls
129 P. 278 (California Supreme Court, 1912)
In re the Estate of Alfstad
67 P. 593 (Washington Supreme Court, 1902)
In Re the Estate of Singleton
64 P. 513 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1901)
Nagle v. Robins
62 P. 154 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1900)
Dickey v. Gibson
53 P. 704 (California Supreme Court, 1898)