Legal Opinion

Estate of Fisk

California Supreme Court

Decided February 17, 1920No. L. A. No. 6085PublishedCited by 5 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtWilbur, J.

Maude Bryant Fisk appeals from a decree of partial distribution, claiming that the' interpretation placed upon the residuary clause in the will of the testatrix was erroneous, for the reason that the decree provided for an equal division of the property among five persons named in the residuary clause, whereas it should have given one-half thereof to appellant, and distributed the other half to William Dunn, Aida Furst, Charles Dunn, and Clarence Dunn. In other words, that appellant should have received thirty thousand dollars instead of twelve thousand dollars of the sixty thousand dollars…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. In Re the Appraisal Under the Transfer Tax Acts of the Property of KimberlyNew York Court of Appeals · 1896
  2. Moffett v. . ElmendorfNew York Court of Appeals · 1897
  3. In Re Estate of MurphyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
  4. Senger v. Senger's Ex'orSupreme Court of Virginia · 1886
  5. Kling v. SchnellbeckerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1899

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Boston Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. DoolanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1940
  2. H. Moffat Co. v. HeckeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924
  3. State Ex Rel. McCoske v. KinnearWashington Supreme Court · 1927
  4. Estate of BackestoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
  5. Burnett v. BurnettCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API