Legal Opinion

Finnerty v. Pennie

California Supreme Court

Decided December 6, 1893No. 15286PublishedCited by 10 opinions

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Belcher, C.

In January, 1889, Matthew Connors died, owning an undivided one-half interest in certain real property, situate in the city and county of San Francisco, and leaving as his sole heir-at-law his father, Michael Connors. In June, 1889, Michael Connors also died, leaving as his sole heirs-at-law two daughters, Margaret O’Neill and Mary A. Connors. In November, 1889, Thomas Kirkpatrick was duly appointed administrator of the estate of each of the said decedents by the superior court of the city and county of San Francisco, and thereafter he duly qualified and entered upon the discharge…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. In re the estate of MooreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
  2. In re Estate of RowlandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Commercial Bank of San Luis Obispo v. BurkeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  2. Clanton v. CriteserCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
  3. Title Insurance & Trust Co. v. Miller & Lux, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1920
  4. Estate of SchluterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930
  5. Kasperbauer v. FairfieldCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009

5 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