In re the Estate of Kelley

California Supreme Court

In re the Estate of Kelley

63 Cal. 106, 1883 Cal. LEXIS 371

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 29, 1883

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 63 Cal. 106 (In re the Estate of Kelley) 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 Kelley, 63 Cal. 106, 1883 Cal. LEXIS 371 (Cal. 1883).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This isan appeal from an order of partial distribution, made under § 1658 to § 1661 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appeal is taken by" the executrix.

First—The point made that the executrix cannot be heard to question the propriety of the order, or to appeal therefrom, is answered by § 1660, which declares that the executrix may resist the application.

Second—The court, after a hearing, found that prior to May 1, 1882, funds had come to the possession of the executrix sufficient to pay all the debts known to the executrix, and all the debts, charges, and expenses of administration which had accrued prior to April 4, 1882, together with the legacies of the first class, and that since that time the further sum of seven thousand dollars had come to her hands; that the legacies to the petitioners could be paid without loss to creditors or injury to the fund necessary to pay the expenses of administration accrued and to accrue. The case comes to us on appeal from the order without the evidence. We cannot see that any error was committed. The court has jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject-matter, and the proceedings seem to be in strict conformity to the sections above referred to.

Order affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

This isan appeal from an order of partial distribution, made under § 1658 to § 1661 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appeal is taken by" the executrix.

First—The point made that the executrix cannot be heard to question the propriety of the order, or to appeal therefrom, is answered by § 1660, which declares that the executrix may resist the application.

Second—The court, after a hearing, found that prior to May 1, 1882, funds had come to the possession of the executrix sufficient to pay all the debts known to the executrix, and all the debts, charges, and expenses of administration which had accrued prior to April 4, 1882, together with the legacies of the first class, and that since that time the further sum of seven thousand dollars had come to her hands; that the legacies to the petitioners could be paid without loss to creditors or injury to the fund necessary to pay the expenses of administration accrued and to accrue. The case comes to us on appeal from the order without the evidence. We cannot see that any error was committed. The court has jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject-matter, and the proceedings seem to be in strict conformity to the sections above referred to.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 Cal. 106, 1883 Cal. LEXIS 371, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-kelley-cal-1883.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack