Legal Opinion

Cole v. Riley

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 19, 1936No. Civ. No. 11006PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ROTH, J., pro tem.

This appeal involves the construction of section 609 of the Probate Code prior to its amendment in 1933. It then read as follows: “Compensation of appraisers. Each appraiser is entitled to receive, from each estate he appraises, his actual and necessary expenses and compensation for his services not to exceed five dollars per day, to be allowed by the court; and he must file with the inventory, a verified account of his services and disbursements.”

The respondents Merrick and Riley claim that they devoted 118 and 116 days, respectively, to the work of appraising the estate…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Coulter v. PoolCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
  2. Goldsmith v. Board of Education of Sacramento City High School DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924
  3. Evans v. Selma Union High School DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
  4. Cosgriff v. Bd. of Election Commr's of S.F.California Supreme Court · 1907
  5. City of Eureka v. DiazCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Edwards v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
  2. Ex parte BurtonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1963
  3. Scotch Lumber Company v. HornSupreme Court of Alabama · 1956

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

Powered by the Exa API