In Re Estate of Heeney
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Joaquin County settling the account of an administrator. Frank H. Smith, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtMcLAUGHLIN, J.
Richard Heeney died intestate in 1892, leaving five children who were his only heirs. Of these children, Mary E., died in December, 1896, William in April, 1900, Lulia A., in May, 1901, and Walter in April, 1903. The only survivor, Richard J., is respondent herein, and the husband and child of Lulia A., as her sole heirs, are appellants. William left a widow, but neither Mary nor Walter were ever married. By reason of a tacit understanding or agreement among the heirs, no administration was had upon the father’s estate until March 8, 1901, when letters were issued to the respondent. The only…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Smith v. WesterfieldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Fowler v. MillerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Theller v. SuchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
- Buckley v. Superior Court of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Guardianship of BreslinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- In Re Balke's EstateArizona Supreme Court · 1949
- Barreiro v. Bank of Italy National Trust & Savings Ass'nCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
- Estate of MacHadoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
- Kessler v. StewartCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923
- Lamkin v. VierraCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.