In re Estate of Hull
Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco
The will mentioned in the opinion below was admitted to probate, and Timothy L. Barker and Joseph D. G-rant were appointed executors thereof, and letters testamentary were issued to them, on November 14, 1893. On November 5, 1894, the Market Street Railway Company (claiming as the successor of the Omnibus Cable Company) filed a petition for distribution to it of the bequest contained in the eighteenth clause of the will, which clause is fully-set out in the opinion.
Read the full summary
The will mentioned in the opinion below was admitted to probate, and Timothy L. Barker and Joseph D. G-rant were appointed executors thereof, and letters testamentary were issued to them, on November 14, 1893. On November 5, 1894, the Market Street Railway Company (claiming as the successor of the Omnibus Cable Company) filed a petition for distribution to it of the bequest contained in the eighteenth clause of the will, which clause is fully-set out in the opinion. On December 14, 1894, the executors filed an answer to this petition. The facts found by the court are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtCoffey, J.
1. Edward Hull, a director and stockholder in the Omnibus Cable Company, on the 21st of May, 1891, made his will, the eighteenth clause of which reads:
“Eighteenth—I give, devise and bequeath unto the Omnibus Cable Company of San Francisco, State of California, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of said state, the sum of ten thousand ($10,000) dollars in trust, to be by it invested in such good and safe interest-paying securities as the directors of said corporation shall deem advisable. The entire income thereof to be appropriated, at such times
*380and periods during each year as…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Thomas v. Railroad Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Jones v. HabershamSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Ould v. Washington Hospital for FoundlingsSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Russell v. AllenSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Estate of HinckleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.