Legal Opinion

Estate of Young

California Supreme Court

Decided April 10, 1906No. S.F. No. 4499PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

M. Young died, leaving a last will, which was admitted to probate in the superior court of Santa Cruz County, and letters testamentary thereon were issued to A. St. Clair and William Armstrong on the 27th of April, 1903. On December 12, 1904, Pauline Young Hyde, one of the appellants, filed a petition for partial distribution, in which she alleged that the decedent had left as his sole heirs four children, of whom she was one, and that said decedent had, by an omission not appearing to be intentional, failed to provide in his will for any of his said children. The executors met this petition…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Elliott v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  2. Senter v. De BernalCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
  3. Ryer v. RyerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
  4. Williams v. Santa Clara Mining Ass'n of Balt.California Supreme Court · 1884
  5. Harper v. HildrethCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Title Insurance & Trust Co. v. California Development Co.California Supreme Court · 1915
  2. Hebrew Home for Aged Disabled v. FriedmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
  3. Arnold v. MorrisseyMontana Supreme Court · 1921
  4. Johnson v. Phenix Ins. Co. of BrooklynCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
  5. Mann v. MannCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946

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

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

Powered by the Exa API