Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Leary v. Scully

California Supreme Court

Decided January 23, 1943No. Sac. No. 5448Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

CARTER, J.,

Concurring and dissenting. — I concur in the judgment of reversal, although I seriously doubt that the Legislature intended when it enacted section 254 of the Probate Code that kindred of the half blood should be excluded from an inheritance because they are not of the blood of the ancestor from whom the estate descended, while kindred of the whole blood likewise not of the blood of such ancestor are permitted to participate in such estate. But I can see no escape from the conclusion that section 226 of the Probate Code controls the descent of property insofar as kindred of the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. In Re Turner's EstateWashington Supreme Court · 1937
  2. Hudnall v. HamIllinois Supreme Court · 1898
  3. Center v. KramerOhio Supreme Court · 1925
  4. Stevenson v. GrayIndiana Court of Appeals · 1909

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

Powered by the Exa API