Leach v. Pierce
California Supreme Court
Mandamus from the Supreme Court to the judge of the Superior Court of San. Diego County. The petitioner, Maggie Leach, was found by the superior court to be entitled to five sixths of the estate of Henry S. Burton, deceased, subject to distribution, and Elizabeth Cochrane and Bi chard Lull, absent grandchildren of the decedent, who were represented by an attorney appointed by the court, were found to be entitled each to one twelfth thereof.
Read the full summary
Mandamus from the Supreme Court to the judge of the Superior Court of San. Diego County. The petitioner, Maggie Leach, was found by the superior court to be entitled to five sixths of the estate of Henry S. Burton, deceased, subject to distribution, and Elizabeth Cochrane and Bi chard Lull, absent grandchildren of the decedent, who were represented by an attorney appointed by the court, were found to be entitled each to one twelfth thereof. Further facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtPaterson, J.
The petitioner alleges that on the thirteenth day of November, 1890, in the superior court of the county of San Diego, in the matter of the estate of Henry S. Burton, deceased, Jim S. Callen, an attorney, in representing Elizabeth Cochrane and Bichard Lull by appointment of the court, asked the court to allow him three thousand dollars fees in said matter as necessary expenses of administration; that on January 3d Judge Aitken allowed Callen two thousand five hundred dollars, and directed the administrator to pay the same out of the funds of the estate, and upon distribution to be charged to…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Stuttmeister v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
3Cited by4 opinions
- Trout v. CarlesonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1974
- Cross v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1905
- Christy v. ArmstrongArizona Supreme Court · 1902
- State Ex Rel. Hamilton v. District CourtMontana Supreme Court · 1936