Schwarz v. Taeger

Idaho Supreme Court

Schwarz v. Taeger

258 P. 1085, 44 Idaho 633, 1927 Ida. LEXIS 149

CourtIdaho Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 30, 1927

DocketNo. 4812.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 258 P. 1085 (Schwarz v. Taeger) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Idaho Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Schwarz v. Taeger, 258 P. 1085, 44 Idaho 633, 1927 Ida. LEXIS 149 (Idaho 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

*635 GIVENS, J.

Appellant Christian F. Schwarz’ motion for an allowance of costs, disbursements and attorney’s fees incurred as proponent for probate of the will of Otto Henry Schwarz, deceased, which will was contested by respondent, was denied and appellant brings this appeal.

Appellant first relies on C. S., secs. 7769 and 7771. C. S., see. 7769, provides for the appointment of an attorney by the court for minor legatees, devisees, heirs or creditors, and therefore would not include appellant because no such appointment was made, and consequently appellants do not come within such provisions of the statute.

C. S., sec. 7771, provides 'as follows:

“When it is not otherwise prescribed in this title, the probate court, or the district or supreme court on appeal, may, in its discretion, order costs to be paid by any party to the proceedings, or out of the assets of the estate, as justice may require. Execution for the costs may issue out of the probate court.”

This section is identical with California Code of Civil Procedure, sec. 1720, which has been construed as applying *636 to a contest before probate, the situation herein. (Estate of Jones, 166 Cal. 147, 778, 135 Pac. 293), and the discretionary power given the court cannot be exercised until the final determination of the litigation. (Estate of Berthol, 163 Cal. 343, 125 Pac. 750; Henry v. Superior Court, 93 Cal. 569, 29 Pac. 230; Estate of Yoell, 160 Cal. 741, 117 Pac. 1047; Estate of Jones, supra; In re Johnson’s Estate, 198 Cal. 469, 245 Pac. 1089.)

Schwarz v. Taeger, ante, p. 625, 258 Pac. 1082, under which appellant is claiming and which is now before the court, was reversed and remanded for a new trial and thus has not been finally determined, and the lower court has no discretionary power to award costs until the litigation has come to a definite end, and the trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion.

The judgment is affirmed. Costs of this appeal awarded to respondent.

Wm. E. Lee, C. J., and Budge and T. Bailey Lee, JJ., concur. ' Taylor, J., concurs in the conclusion reached.

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

*635 GIVENS, J.

Appellant Christian F. Schwarz’ motion for an allowance of costs, disbursements and attorney’s fees incurred as proponent for probate of the will of Otto Henry Schwarz, deceased, which will was contested by respondent, was denied and appellant brings this appeal.

Appellant first relies on C. S., secs. 7769 and 7771. C. S., see. 7769, provides for the appointment of an attorney by the court for minor legatees, devisees, heirs or creditors, and therefore would not include appellant because no such appointment was made, and consequently appellants do not come within such provisions of the statute.

C. S., sec. 7771, provides 'as follows:

“When it is not otherwise prescribed in this title, the probate court, or the district or supreme court on appeal, may, in its discretion, order costs to be paid by any party to the proceedings, or out of the assets of the estate, as justice may require. Execution for the costs may issue out of the probate court.”

This section is identical with California Code of Civil Procedure, sec. 1720, which has been construed as applying *636 to a contest before probate, the situation herein. (Estate of Jones, 166 Cal. 147, 778, 135 Pac. 293), and the discretionary power given the court cannot be exercised until the final determination of the litigation. (Estate of Berthol, 163 Cal. 343, 125 Pac. 750; Henry v. Superior Court, 93 Cal. 569, 29 Pac. 230; Estate of Yoell, 160 Cal. 741, 117 Pac. 1047; Estate of Jones, supra; In re Johnson’s Estate, 198 Cal. 469, 245 Pac. 1089.)

Schwarz v. Taeger, ante, p. 625, 258 Pac. 1082, under which appellant is claiming and which is now before the court, was reversed and remanded for a new trial and thus has not been finally determined, and the lower court has no discretionary power to award costs until the litigation has come to a definite end, and the trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion.

The judgment is affirmed. Costs of this appeal awarded to respondent.

Wm. E. Lee, C. J., and Budge and T. Bailey Lee, JJ., concur. ' Taylor, J., concurs in the conclusion reached.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 P. 1085, 44 Idaho 633, 1927 Ida. LEXIS 149, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schwarz-v-taeger-idaho-1927.

Opinion

C. S., sec. 7771, provides 'as follows:

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack