In re the Estate of Dorland

California Supreme Court

In re the Estate of Dorland

63 Cal. 281, 1883 Cal. LEXIS 430

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 28, 1883

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 63 Cal. 281 (In re the Estate of Dorland) 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 Dorland, 63 Cal. 281, 1883 Cal. LEXIS 430 (Cal. 1883).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The court below was not bound by the opinions of the professional witnesses as to the value of the services rendered by the attorney for the administratrix, and as to the proper amount to be' allowed therefor. The court was authorized to compare its own judgment as to such value with the opinions of the witnesses, and make such allowance as should be just. (Head v. Hargrave, 105 U. S. 45; Anthony v. Stinson, 4 Kan. 211.)

The court charged the administratrix with a cash balance of $7,611.57. We see no error in this. The court permitted her to retain $2,930 for payment of expenses of administration. This left $4,681.57 with which to pay a dividend on claims. The court ordered a dividend of twenty-five per cent to be paid on claims, and in giving the names of claimants and the amounts to be paid for each, the aggregate is a trifle over $5,100. We apprehend that some confusion may have arisen in the clerical work of stating the amounts to be paid, and therefore the cause is remanded, with instructions to make such corrections as will make the aggregate of the sums to be paid as dividends not to exceed $4,681.57, and in all other respects the order and decree are affirmed.

Hearing in Bank denied.

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

Per Curiam.

The court below was not bound by the opinions of the professional witnesses as to the value of the services rendered by the attorney for the administratrix, and as to the proper amount to be' allowed therefor. The court was authorized to compare its own judgment as to such value with the opinions of the witnesses, and make such allowance as should be just. (Head v. Hargrave, 105 U. S. 45; Anthony v. Stinson, 4 Kan. 211.)

The court charged the administratrix with a cash balance of $7,611.57. We see no error in this. The court permitted her to retain $2,930 for payment of expenses of administration. This left $4,681.57 with which to pay a dividend on claims. The court ordered a dividend of twenty-five per cent to be paid on claims, and in giving the names of claimants and the amounts to be paid for each, the aggregate is a trifle over $5,100. We apprehend that some confusion may have arisen in the clerical work of stating the amounts to be paid, and therefore the cause is remanded, with instructions to make such corrections as will make the aggregate of the sums to be paid as dividends not to exceed $4,681.57, and in all other respects the order and decree are affirmed.

Hearing in Bank denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 Cal. 281, 1883 Cal. LEXIS 430, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-dorland-cal-1883.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack