In re the Estate of Boland

43 Cal. 640
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedApril 15, 1872
DocketNo. 2,474
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 43 Cal. 640 (In re the Estate of Boland) 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 the Estate of Boland, 43 Cal. 640 (Cal. 1872).

Opinion

[642]*642By the Court,

Niles, J.:

Conceding, for the purpose of this case, that the property in question could be set apart to the widow, under the provisions of the Probate Act, notwithstanding the will of John Boland, it is evident that the widow could acquire no homestead interest in the property until an order of the Probate Court, or Judge, was made, setting it ajiart to her. It difiera from the case of a homestead created during the existence of the community, by a compliance with the provisions of the Homestead Act, the title to which vests in the wife upon the death of the husband, by right of survivorship. In the latter case the property becomes the property of the widow by operation of law. In the case presented it could only become hers by the decree of the Court or Judge. If there could be any doubt at what time the right of the widow attaches to the land, and withdraws it from administration, it is settled by the provisions of section one hundred and twenty-five of the Probate Act: “When property shall have been set apart for the use of the family, in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, if the deceased shall have left a widow and no minor child, such •property shall be the properly of the widow. H he shall have also a minor child or children, the one half of such property shall belong to the widow, and the remainder to the child,” etc.

The right of Margaret Lane to have a homestead set apart to her from the estate of her former husband, John Boland, must, therefore, be determined from the facts as they existed on the 3d of January, 1870, when the order of the Probate Court was made. This was nearly nine years after the death of John Boland. Margaret, his former widow, had been for over seven years married to her present husband, Lane. The only child of John and Margaret Boland had married, and was no longer under her mother’s charge or control.

Sections one hundred and twenty-one, one hundred and [643]*643twenty-four, and one hundred and twenty-five of the Probate Act, under which the order was made, make provision for but two classes—the widow and the family of the deceased.

Margaret Lane occupied neither of these positions. Her widowhood terminated by her marriage with Charles Lane, and she then became a member of his family. Whatever right she may have once had to have the property set apart for her use, she lost when she lost the status upon which the right depended.

Order and judgment reversed, and cause remanded.

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

Related

Estate of Murphy
225 Cal. App. 2d 224 (California Court of Appeal, 1964)
Murphy v. Wells Fargo Bank
225 Cal. App. 2d 224 (California Court of Appeal, 1964)
California Bank v. Schlesinger
324 P.2d 119 (California Court of Appeal, 1958)
California Bank v. Schlesinger
159 Cal. App. 2d 854 (Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California, 1958)
Estate of Blair
269 P.2d 612 (California Supreme Court, 1954)
Bonnen v. Ruoff
269 P.2d 612 (California Supreme Court, 1954)
Estate of Edith E. Dalton v. Dalton
197 P.2d 62 (California Court of Appeal, 1948)
In re Estate of Newell
1 Cal. Super. Ct. 125 (California Superior Court, 1923)
Iltz v. Krieger
202 P. 409 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1922)
In re Hansen's Estate
184 P. 197 (Utah Supreme Court, 1919)
Estate of Pillsbury
166 P. 11 (California Supreme Court, 1917)
Pillsbury v. Title Insurance & Trust Co.
175 Cal. 454 (California Supreme Court, 1917)
Krohn v. Hirsch
142 P. 647 (Washington Supreme Court, 1914)
In Re Estate of Heywood
84 P. 834 (California Supreme Court, 1906)
Webb v. Still
49 P. 463 (California Supreme Court, 1897)
Estate of Hayes
1 Coffey 551 (California Superior Court, San Francisco County, 1895)
Fealey v. Fealey
38 P. 49 (California Supreme Court, 1894)
Sheehy v. Miles
28 P. 1046 (California Supreme Court, 1892)
Estate of Goodale
5 Coffey 288 (California Superior Court, San Francisco County, 1891)
Estate of Green
1 Coffey 444 (California Superior Court, San Francisco County, 1888)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
43 Cal. 640, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-boland-cal-1872.