Legal Opinion

In re Estate of Groome

California Supreme Court

Decided March 26, 1892No. 14666PublishedCited by 14 opinions

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of San Luis Obispo County denying a petition for the setting apart of a probate homestead, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Belcher, C.

In July, 1886, Thomas B. Groome, under the homestead laws of the United States, filed a homestead claim upon 160 acres of public land in San Luis Obispo County. At the time of filing his claim, he was living on the land filed upon with his family, and continued to do so thereafter till he died. In 1887, he commuted his homestead, and paid the government for the land, and in December, 1890, a government patent *70therefor was issued and delivered in his name. In May, 1890, he died intestate, leaving surviving him his widow, Julia Groome, and one daughter, then sixteen years of age. In…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Kreamer v. EarlCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  2. In re the Estate of BurtonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1883
  3. Estate of BurtonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Morey v. PaladiniCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
  2. Hooper v. BarrantiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947
  3. In Re Estate of NiccollsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
  4. Chateau v. SinglaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  5. City of McMinnville v. HowenstineOregon Supreme Court · 1910

9 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