Legal Opinion
In Re Estate Hamilton
California Supreme Court
Decided July 24, 1903No. S.F. No. 3433PublishedCited by 5 opinions
The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
HAYNES, C.
Appeal from a decree settling the final account of W. T. Hamilton as guardian of said Elizabeth H. Hamilton. There is no statement or bill of exceptions. The ward appeals.
From the findings it appears that said W. T. Hamilton was on February 25, 1889, appointed guardian of the person and estate of his daughter, the said Elizabeth, then of the age of nine years; that he failed to file any statement or inventory of the estate of said ward, or any account of his guardianship, until required to do so by an order of the court made March 16, 1901; that immediately after said appointment he…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- In re LuxCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- In re Estate of StottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1877
- In re the Estate of HilliardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- In re the Guardianship & Estate of EschrichCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Guardianship of CeasCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
3Cited by5 opinions
- In Re Estate of PiercyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
- Gaver v. EarlyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
- Equitable Surety Co. v. SappSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1920
- Bank of America v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
- F. E. Young Co. v. FernstromCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1938