Legal Opinion

Howard's Estate

Nevada Supreme Court

Decided August 5, 1924No. 2652PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Proposition that executor is not, under these circumstances, answerable to process of garnishment is abundantly supported by authorities. Norton v. Clark, 18 Nev. 247; Rev. Laws, 6055, sec. 198; 12 R.C.L. 814; 47 L.R.A. 348; note 30, L.R.A. (N.S.) 720.

Appeal will lie from decision allowing final administration account. Rev. Laws, 6112. Also, from order refusing to revoke letter of administration. Bailey's Estate, 31 Nev. 378. The thousand dollar limitation relates only to decisions respecting matters not specifically enumerated. State v. District Court,40 Nev. 169.

The point, not having been…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Commercial Bank of San Luis Obispo v. BurkeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  2. Nelson v. SmithNevada Supreme Court · 1918
  3. In re the Estate of ForneyNevada Supreme Court · 1919
  4. Ross v. ClarkeSupreme Court of the United States · 1788
  5. Shewell v. KeenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1837

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Gottwals v. ManskeNevada Supreme Court · 1940
  2. De Met v. ZemanNevada Supreme Court · 1971
  3. Richards v. Steele Ex Rel. StuartNevada Supreme Court · 1938

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API