Legal Opinion

In re the Estate of Cool

Warren County Surrogate's Court

Decided March 12, 1941PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Rosecrans, C. P. J.

The petitioner as executor has presented his account for confirmation and allowance, and proof has been submitted that due notice of settlement has-been given to the several interested parties of both sexes in conformity with the statute and rule. No appearance was made either personally or by proctor by any of the interested parties except the petitioner. Nor did the petitioner file an affidavit relative to the military service of the interested parties pursuant to the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief act of 1940. October 17th, 1940, chapter 888, section 1, 54 Stat. p.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Mason City & Fort Dodge Railroad v. BoyntonSupreme Court of the United States · 1907
  2. Lonergan's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
  3. The Employers' Fire Ins. Co. v. RitterNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1933

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Winslow v. Harold G. Ferguson Corp.California Supreme Court · 1944
  2. Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club v. CollinsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994
  3. Cloyd v. CloydMissouri Court of Appeals · 1978
  4. Semler v. OertwigSupreme Court of Iowa · 1943
  5. B & B Sulphur Co. v. KelleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943

9 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