Legal Opinion

Estate of Gay

California Supreme Court

Decided March 5, 1903No. S.F. No. 2989PublishedCited by 11 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

CHIPMAN, C.

Martin Francis Quinn, the distributee of the residue of the estate, appeals from the decree of partial distribution to Lizzie Gay, who was one of several legatees of the will of deceased. The second clause of the will reads as follows:—

“I direct that the sum of $2,000 be set apart out of my estate, and safely invested and reinvested by said Lizzie Gay, either by deposit in first-class savings banks in said city and county, or in first mortgages on real estate in said city and county; the loan on mortgage in no case to exceed fifty per cent of the market value of the property…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Estate of HinckleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
  2. Carpenter v. CookCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
  3. In Re Estate of UphamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
  4. Bates v. BatesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1883
  5. Fay v. HoweCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Wing v. Forest Lawn Cemetery Assn.California Supreme Court · 1940
  2. In Re the Estate of ColemanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
  3. Estate of RollinsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
  4. Estate of ThomasonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1966
  5. Capital Lodge No. 87 v. PfundCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949

6 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