Legal Opinion

Fisher v. Minshall

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided March 21, 1938No. 14,053PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Burke

Plaintiffs in error, heirs at law of deceased, are hereinafter referred to as the heirs, defendant in error Min-shall as the administrator, Number Nine Pearl Street as Number Nine, the deceased as Fisher, and one Thomas Wolfe as Wolfe.

The administrator brought this action against the heirs, seeking simply the court’s judgment as to the final disposition of the assets of the estate. Fisher’s will required these to be devoted to a specified trust. This was admittedly impossible. Number Nine, by intervention, sought these assets under the rule of cy pres, i. e., “as near as may be. ’ ’ The court…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Teele v. Bishop of DerryMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1897
  2. Clayton v. HallettSupreme Court of Colorado · 1902
  3. Kemmerer v. KemmererIllinois Supreme Court · 1908
  4. Robbins v. County CommissionersSupreme Court of Colorado · 1911
  5. Brown v. ConditNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1905

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. In Re Hayward's EstateArizona Supreme Court · 1947
  2. Moore v. City and County of DenverSupreme Court of Colorado · 1956
  3. People v. City of DenverSupreme Court of Colorado · 1939
  4. Matter of Estate of ValleryColorado Court of Appeals · 1993
  5. City and County of Denver v. CurriganSupreme Court of Colorado · 1961

4 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