McElhinney v. Trissel
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtFiles, J.
This is an appeal from an order appointing the decedent’s son administrator with will annexed. The facts are not in dispute. The question is whether, as a matter of law, the son had priority over the appellant.
The will of the decedent was admitted to probate, without opposition, on December 27, 1960, and the executor qualified. The will bequeaths $500 to decedent’s son, William, and the .residue to appellant, who is not related by blood or marriage. The estate was appraised at $87,684.40. The will provides that if any beneficiary shall in any manner contest or attack it, the share given to…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Tracy v. MuirCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
- Estate of BevilacquaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
- Estate of FullerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
- In Re Estate of CritesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
- Castro v. RichardsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1861
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Estate of KaseroffCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
- Kysar v. PettersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
- Field v. HeimCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969