Legal Opinion

In Re the Estate of Hayne

California Supreme Court

Decided June 5, 1913No. L.A. No. 3337PublishedCited by 21 opinions

APPEAL from a decree of the Superior Court of Santa Barbara County distributing the estate of a deceased person. S. E. Crow, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.

The decision of the case depends upon the meaning and legal effect of the last will and codicil of the decedent. There was a residuary clause naming as recipients of the residue of the estate four sons, one of whom had died without issue before the making of the codicil. The decedent left, as surviving heirs, four sons and a grandson, to wit: Benjamin Stiles Hayne, Brewton Alston Hayne, and Stephen Duncan Hayne (who with Arthur Perronneau Hayne, deceased, were the persons named in the residuary clause), and William Alston Hayne, the sons, and Robert T. Hayne, the grandson, the latter being…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. In Re the Estate of TompkinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
  2. Bowron v. . KentNew York Court of Appeals · 1908
  3. Distributees of Mitchell v. Mitchell's Adm'r.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1845
  4. In re the Estate of VaughnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  5. Bradsher v. . CannadySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1877

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

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Estate of VanderhurstCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
  2. Estate of HoltermannCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
  3. In Re State of CuttingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
  4. Matthews v. LeonardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
  5. Estate of FlintCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1972

16 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