In re Estate of Pickard

California Supreme Court

In re Estate of Pickard

169 Cal. 162

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 25, 1915

DocketS. F. No. 7068

StatusPublished

This text of 169 Cal. 162 (In re Estate of Pickard) 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 Pickard, 169 Cal. 162 (Cal. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

[163]*163At the close of the argument Shaw, J., delivered the opinion of the court, Sloss, J., and Lawlor, J., concurring:

This is an appeal from an order setting apart a homestead to the widow of the decedent.

So far as the character of the property and its suitability for a homestead are concerned, the case cannot be distinguished from the cases of Heathman v. Holmes, 94 Cal. 291, [29 Pac. 404], Estate of Levy, 141 Cal. 646, [75 Pac. 317], and McKay v. Gesford, 163 Cal. 243, [Ann. Cas. 1913E, 1253, 41 L. R. A. (N. S.) 303, 124 Pac. 1016]. The decision of the lower court is sustained on that point on the authority of those cases.

In regard to the proposition that it is community property, that, of course, is a matter of evidence, the presumption being, to start with, that it was community property. Taking the evidence as a whole, there is enough to sustain the finding of the lower court that it was community property. That being the case, the court was justified in setting it apart in fee as a homestead.

The order is affirmed.

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

[163]*163At the close of the argument Shaw, J., delivered the opinion of the court, Sloss, J., and Lawlor, J., concurring:

This is an appeal from an order setting apart a homestead to the widow of the decedent.

So far as the character of the property and its suitability for a homestead are concerned, the case cannot be distinguished from the cases of Heathman v. Holmes, 94 Cal. 291, [29 Pac. 404], Estate of Levy, 141 Cal. 646, [75 Pac. 317], and McKay v. Gesford, 163 Cal. 243, [Ann. Cas. 1913E, 1253, 41 L. R. A. (N. S.) 303, 124 Pac. 1016]. The decision of the lower court is sustained on that point on the authority of those cases.

In regard to the proposition that it is community property, that, of course, is a matter of evidence, the presumption being, to start with, that it was community property. Taking the evidence as a whole, there is enough to sustain the finding of the lower court that it was community property. That being the case, the court was justified in setting it apart in fee as a homestead.

The order is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 Cal. 162, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-estate-of-pickard-cal-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack