Sulzberger v. Sulzberger

50 Cal. 385
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1875
DocketNo. 4169
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 50 Cal. 385 (Sulzberger v. Sulzberger) 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
Sulzberger v. Sulzberger, 50 Cal. 385 (Cal. 1875).

Opinion

By the Court:

The court refused to set apart a homestead to the petitioner as the widow of the deceased, on the ground that the property was the separate property of the deceased, and having been disposed of by his will, was not subject to the homestead-claim of his widow, and on the further ground that the widow, having qualified as the executrix, and being entitled, as one of the residuary devisees to a portion of the estate, cannot question the validity of the disposition made by the will. The estate was valued at more than $28,472. The will directed the sum of $10,000 to be paid to each of his two children, and devised the remainder of his property, after the payment of his debts, to his wife and their two children, share and share alike.

The power of testamentary disposition of property, as conferred and defined by the statute, is not paramount, but is subordinate to the authority conferred upon the Probate Court to appropriate the property for the support of the family of the testator, and for a homestead for the widow and minor child or children, as well as for the payment of the debts of the estate. A devise which clearly appeared to have been intended as in lieu of a homestsad, would present a different question from the one at bar.

[388]*388The acceptance by the petitioner of letters testamentary, and the fact that she was, by the will, constituted one of the residuary legatees, does not tend to show that she waived her right to a homestead as prescribed by the statute.

The homestead is to be set apart in pursuance of the statute in force at the time when the order is made, and the interest therein which the widow and the surviving child will take, is to be determined by the same statute. (Estate of Boland, 43 Cal. 640.)

Order reversed and cause remanded for further proceedings.

Mr. Chief Justice Wallace did not express an opinion.

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

Related

Estate of Davis
194 P.2d 713 (California Court of Appeal, 1948)
Roth v. Wardell
77 F.2d 124 (Ninth Circuit, 1935)
In Re Oppenheimer's Estate
238 P. 599 (Montana Supreme Court, 1925)
Trepp's Estate Barclay v. Trepp
227 P. 1005 (Montana Supreme Court, 1924)
Leet v. Barr
202 P. 414 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1922)
Ferguson v. Holborn
211 P. 953 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1922)
Lemp v. Lemp
184 P. 224 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1919)
In re Schenk's Estate
178 P. 344 (Utah Supreme Court, 1919)
Furman v. Brewer
177 P. 495 (California Court of Appeal, 1918)
Rountree v. Montague
157 P. 623 (California Court of Appeal, 1916)
In Re Estate of Gray
112 P. 890 (California Supreme Court, 1911)
Kennedy v. McDougal
108 P. 280 (California Supreme Court, 1910)
Estate of Firth
78 P. 643 (California Supreme Court, 1904)
Rosenblum v. Levy
75 P. 301 (California Supreme Court, 1904)
Estate of Huelsman
59 P. 776 (California Supreme Court, 1899)
In re the Estate of Lahiff
24 P. 850 (California Supreme Court, 1890)
Patnode v. Harter
21 P. 679 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1889)
Estate of Green
1 Coffey 444 (California Superior Court, San Francisco County, 1888)
Farmer v. Stephens
10 P. 671 (California Supreme Court, 1886)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
50 Cal. 385, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sulzberger-v-sulzberger-cal-1875.