Legal Opinion
Thornagel v. Pforr
California Supreme Court
Decided July 13, 1904No. S.F. No. 3782PublishedCited by 55 opinions
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco admitting a will to probate and from an order denying a petition for partial distribution. J. Y. Coffey, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
HARRISON, C.
The above-named decedent left a last will and testament in which he appointed the respondents Anna Pforr and Max Waizman as his executors, and disposed of his estate as follows:—
“A. First. I give and bequeath to my said niece, Anna Pforr, all household furniture, books, and pictures which I may possess at the time of my demise.
“A. Second. I desire and direct that my executrix and executor shall take in charge all my property, real and personal (except that which I have hereinbefore bequeathed to Anna Pforr), and to collect all the rent and other income from the same, and to defray…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Manice v. . ManiceNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
- Robert v. . CorningNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
- Phelps' v. . PondNew York Court of Appeals · 1861
- Marti v. AndersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- Baker v. CopenbargerIllinois Supreme Court · 1853
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by55 opinions
- Church Home for Children of Protestant Episcopal Church v. LawrenceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
- Estate of DolbeerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
- Parr-Richmond Industrial Corp. v. BoydCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
- Estate of PlautCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
- Leadbetter v. PriceOregon Supreme Court · 1921
50 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.