In Re the Estate of Williams

Washington Supreme Court

In Re the Estate of Williams

271 P. 1006, 150 Wash. 695, 1928 Wash. LEXIS 938

CourtWashington Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 28, 1928

DocketNo. 20976. En Banc.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 271 P. 1006 (In Re the Estate of Williams) 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 Williams, 271 P. 1006, 150 Wash. 695, 1928 Wash. LEXIS 938 (Wash. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam

After the Departmental opinion was filed in this case, 147 Wash. 381, 266 Pac. 137, we granted a petition for rehearing and the case was heard before the court sitting En Banc.

Respondents have argued strenuously against our construction of the statute, Rem. Comp. Stat. § 1528, covering compensation for executors who have renounced the compensation provided in the will. In this connection the respondents have urged that the Departmental opinion should be reversed, because the construction placed upon the statute was evidently meant to apply only in those cases where an executor has speculated on the outcome or procrastinated and delayed the handling of the estate until he could put himself in a position to obtain a larger fee by the renunciation of the compensation provided for in the will; and that, since in this case there was neither speculation, procrastination or delay, and the services were worth the amount allowed by the trial court, the construction we gave the statute should not apply.

While it is true that in the present case the amount allowed the respondents by the trial court was not in excess of the reasonable value of the services performed, and the record bears no evidence of any untoward actions on the part of the respondents in the handling of the estate with a view to obtaining larger compensation, yet it must be borne in mind that the words in the decision concerning this feature of the matter were not intended to apply to the facts in the instant case or the parties thereto, but merely as an argument for the purpose of showing what the construction contended for by respondents might enable executors to do, and as a reason why the statute should not be given a construction that would under any circumstances make possible a result of that character.

We think the Departmental opinion correctly construed the statute and the judgment herein will be reversed in accordance with that opinion.

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

Per Curiam

After the Departmental opinion was filed in this case, 147 Wash. 381, 266 Pac. 137, we granted a petition for rehearing and the case was heard before the court sitting En Banc.

Respondents have argued strenuously against our construction of the statute, Rem. Comp. Stat. § 1528, covering compensation for executors who have renounced the compensation provided in the will. In this connection the respondents have urged that the Departmental opinion should be reversed, because the construction placed upon the statute was evidently meant to apply only in those cases where an executor has speculated on the outcome or procrastinated and delayed the handling of the estate until he could put himself in a position to obtain a larger fee by the renunciation of the compensation provided for in the will; and that, since in this case there was neither speculation, procrastination or delay, and the services were worth the amount allowed by the trial court, the construction we gave the statute should not apply.

While it is true that in the present case the amount allowed the respondents by the trial court was not in excess of the reasonable value of the services performed, and the record bears no evidence of any untoward actions on the part of the respondents in the handling of the estate with a view to obtaining larger compensation, yet it must be borne in mind that the words in the decision concerning this feature of the matter were not intended to apply to the facts in the instant case or the parties thereto, but merely as an argument for the purpose of showing what the construction contended for by respondents might enable executors to do, and as a reason why the statute should not be given a construction that would under any circumstances make possible a result of that character.

We think the Departmental opinion correctly construed the statute and the judgment herein will be reversed in accordance with that opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 P. 1006, 150 Wash. 695, 1928 Wash. LEXIS 938, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-williams-wash-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack