Legal Opinion

Exterstein v. Higgins

California Supreme Court

Decided November 26, 1934No. L. A. 14187PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtThompson, J.

This is an appeal from an order vacating an order denying a petition by a creditor to remove an executrix because she failed to account for all the property of the estate, and allowing a motion to reset the cause for hearing. That part of the order vacating the former order was on the court’s own motion, and the remainder was in reference to respondent’s motion.

On December 12, 1929, Claude G-. Higgins, a creditor, filed a petition for the removal of Pearl Exterstein as executrix of the estate of Herman J. Exterstein, her husband, for failing to include in her inventory and account moneys…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. In re the Estate of StevensCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  2. Ruggles v. WelchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
  3. Estate of DavisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
  4. In Re Estate of PendellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
  5. Estate of NolanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Phillips v. PhillipsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
  2. Estate of JanesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
  3. Gosney v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
  4. F.People v. MonierCalifornia Supreme Court · 2017
  5. Rosland v. ConstantineauCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946

14 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