Legal Opinion
Adams v. Prather
California Supreme Court
Decided August 31, 1917No. S. F. No. 7916PublishedCited by 29 opinions
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, and from an order denying a new trial. J. M. Seawell, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
VICTOR E. SHAW, J., pro tem.
This action arose out of the following facts: Thomas Prather and Julia P. A. Prather were husband and wife. On April 6, 1906, Julia died leaving an estate of some six hundred thousand dollars which she made the subject of testamentary disposition by a holographic will in form as follows:
“Oakland, California,
“Sept. 26, 1904.
“I, Julia P. A. Prather, hereby make my will. I give all the property of which I die possessed to my husband Thomas Prather & appoint him my executor to serve without bonds. I give him power to sell any or all of my real estate and personal…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Marti v. AndersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- Land v. ClarkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- Hardy v. MayhewCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
- In Re Estate of TooleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- Metropolis Theater Co. v. City of ChicagoIllinois Supreme Court · 1910
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- Estate of RathCalifornia Supreme Court · 1937
- Tax Commission v. OswaldOhio Supreme Court · 1923
- Ireland v. Pacific HomeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955
- O'Neil v. RossCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
- Security State Bank v. McIntyreMontana Supreme Court · 1924
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.