Legal Opinion

McKee v. Soher

California Supreme Court

Decided January 22, 1903No. S.F. No. 3219PublishedCited by 29 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Action to recover attorney's fees. Defendant had judgment, and this appeal is by plaintiff from the judgment and order denying his motion for a new trial.

It appears that Emile Soher and Adolph Soher were administrators, with the will annexed, of the estate of Lewis Soher, deceased, and had different attorneys representing them as such administrators. In April, 1900, they filed and presented for settlement their joint account of their administration, and at the same time each filed and presented his separate account of his administration.

Upon the hearing of the accounts certain objections were…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. People v. JonesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  2. In re Estate of LevinsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
  3. In re Estate of OgierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. Asia Investment Co. v. LevinWashington Supreme Court · 1922
  2. Armstrong v. IrwinArizona Supreme Court · 1923
  3. Walling v. KrugerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  4. Burke v. NortonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
  5. Work v. Associated Almond GrowersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1926

24 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