In re Estate of Letellier

15 P. 847, 74 Cal. 311, 1887 Cal. LEXIS 788
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 12, 1887
DocketNo. 11240
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 15 P. 847 (In re Estate of Letellier) 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
In re Estate of Letellier, 15 P. 847, 74 Cal. 311, 1887 Cal. LEXIS 788 (Cal. 1887).

Opinion

Hayne, C.

This is an appeal from a decree of partial distribution, made upon the petition of the executor.

The provision of the Code of Civil Procedure is as follows: —

[312]*312“ Sec. 1658. At any time after the lapse of four months from the issuing of letters testamentary or of administration, any heir, devisee, or legatee may present his petition to the court for the legacy or share of the estate to which he is entitled, to be given to him upon his giving bonds, with security, for the payment of his proportion of the debts of the estate.”

And the next section provides that “notice of the application must be given to the executor or administrator ■personally, and to all persons interested,” etc.

These sections are the only ones authorizing partial distribution to be made. It seems to us that they do not contemplate a petition by the executor, to whom it is of no concern whether an heir, devisee, or legatee, gets paid in advance, or not. There being no authority in the statute for the proceedings taken in the court below, it was unauthorized, and should be set aside.

We think this point arises upon the record whether the decree of partial distribution is to be considered as a judgment or as an order.

We therefore advise that the decree appealed from be reversed, and the cause remanded.

Belcher, C. C., and Foote, C., concurred.

The Court.— For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, the decree appealed from is reversed and cause remanded.

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

Related

Arnold v. Morrissey
199 P. 711 (Montana Supreme Court, 1921)
Estate of Lamb
6 Coffey 432 (California Superior Court, 1910)
Alcorn v. Gieseke
111 P. 98 (California Supreme Court, 1910)
Estate of Donahue
1 Coffey 186 (California Superior Court, San Francisco County, 1887)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
15 P. 847, 74 Cal. 311, 1887 Cal. LEXIS 788, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-estate-of-letellier-cal-1887.