In Re the Estate of Frykholm

Washington Supreme Court

In Re the Estate of Frykholm

244 P. 967, 138 Wash. 551, 1926 Wash. LEXIS 1091

CourtWashington Supreme Court

DecidedApril 12, 1926

DocketNo. 19328. Department Two.

StatusPublished

This text of 244 P. 967 (In Re the Estate of Frykholm) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Washington 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 Frykholm, 244 P. 967, 138 Wash. 551, 1926 Wash. LEXIS 1091 (Wash. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Main, J.

This is an appeal from a final order of distribution in probate.

John Frykholm died intestate December 9, 1911. Mary Frykholm, his widow, the appellant here, was on December 9, 1911, appointed administratrix of the estate of the deceased. On or about December 4,1920, *552 the appellant filed a petition in the proceeding asking for a family allowance. This petition was not disposed of until October 20, 1924, when the final decree of settlement and distribution was entered. In that decree the court declined to set aside anything' to the appellant as a family allowance. It is from this order that the appeal is prosecuted.

On the 29th day of October, 1925, and prior to the hearing of the cause on the merits in this court, the statement of facts was on motion stricken. There is a presumption in favor of the correctness of the decree of the trial court and, if there are any circumstances under which the court would be justified in declining to make a family allowance, the judgment must of necessity be affirmed. In State ex rel. Speckart v. Superior Court, 48 Wash. 141, 92 Pac. 942, it was held, under the facts of that case, that there could be no allowance.. Since we cannot consider the statement of facts which has been stricken, and since there is a presumption in favor of the order of the trial court, it follows that the judgment must be affirmed.

Tolman, O. J., Mitchell, Mackintosh, and Parker, JJ., concur.

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

Main, J.

This is an appeal from a final order of distribution in probate.

John Frykholm died intestate December 9, 1911. Mary Frykholm, his widow, the appellant here, was on December 9, 1911, appointed administratrix of the estate of the deceased. On or about December 4,1920, *552 the appellant filed a petition in the proceeding asking for a family allowance. This petition was not disposed of until October 20, 1924, when the final decree of settlement and distribution was entered. In that decree the court declined to set aside anything' to the appellant as a family allowance. It is from this order that the appeal is prosecuted.

On the 29th day of October, 1925, and prior to the hearing of the cause on the merits in this court, the statement of facts was on motion stricken. There is a presumption in favor of the correctness of the decree of the trial court and, if there are any circumstances under which the court would be justified in declining to make a family allowance, the judgment must of necessity be affirmed. In State ex rel. Speckart v. Superior Court, 48 Wash. 141, 92 Pac. 942, it was held, under the facts of that case, that there could be no allowance.. Since we cannot consider the statement of facts which has been stricken, and since there is a presumption in favor of the order of the trial court, it follows that the judgment must be affirmed.

Tolman, O. J., Mitchell, Mackintosh, and Parker, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 P. 967, 138 Wash. 551, 1926 Wash. LEXIS 1091, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-frykholm-wash-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack