In Re Estate of Funkenstein
California Supreme Court
MOTION to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco denying a petition for letters of administration upon the estate of a deceased person. George A. Sturtevant, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Edgar D. Peixotto, Leon Samuels, and J. R. Pringle, for 'Appellants.
1Opinion of the CourtAt the close of the argument Shaw, J.
The motion to dismiss will be granted.
Arturo Wolf applied for letters of administration on the estate of Tobe Funkenstein. His petition states two essential facts: 1. That he is a resident of the city and county of San Francisco, state of California; 2. That he is an heir at law of the deceased, that is to say, a grandson. The contestants denied that he was a resident of California, or a grandson or heir of the deceased Tobe Funkenstein. The court made its findings on these issues, one that Arturo Wolf was a grandson of the deceased and an heir at law, the other that he was not a resident of…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Chapman v. HughesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- Lillis v. Emigrant Ditch Co.California Supreme Court · 1892
- Fulton v. HanlowCalifornia Supreme Court · 1862
- Collins v. GrayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
- Lance v. ShaughnessyNew York Supreme Court · 1895
3Cited by15 opinions
- Estate of HughesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947
- Maxwell Hardware Co. v. FosterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
- Cicinelli v. IwasakiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
- Grant v. Board of Medical ExaminersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965
- Slavich v. SlavichCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.