Legal Opinion

Estate of Arneberg

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided October 14, 1924PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDoerfler, J.

The administratrix first contends that the estate of a deceased person is not directly liable for the payment of compensation for legal services rendered in the administration of estates, unless the administratrix is insolvent or financially unable to pay for such services, and in support of such contention cites McLaughlin v. Winner, 63 Wis. 120, 23 N. W. 402; Miller v. Tracy, 86 Wis. 330, 333, 334, 56 N. W. 866; and Wiesmann v. Daniels, 114 Wis. 240, 243, 90 N. W. 162. This point is made on the matter of the claim of the petitioners, Smith & Wurster, for services rendered the administratrix…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Brown v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1899
  2. White v. WardSupreme Court of Alabama · 1908
  3. Miller v. TracyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1893
  4. Carpenter v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1904
  5. Schmidt v. Menasha Woodenware Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1898

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Bell v. City of MilwaukeeCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1984
  2. Nichols v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1961
  3. Succession of WallaceSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1991
  4. Bogue v. SachsSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1941
  5. Succession of JenkinsSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1986

10 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