Bates v. Ryberg
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Probate Court of the City and County of San Francisco. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion. If any of the legatees believe themselves entitled t5 more than the decree gives them, they alone are the “parties aggrieved," against whom the order of distribution of this estate bas been entered, and they alone are tbe parties- entitled to appeal under See. 335 of tbe Civil Practice Act.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Probate Court of the City and County of San Francisco. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion. If any of the legatees believe themselves entitled t5 more than the decree gives them, they alone are the “parties aggrieved," against whom the order of distribution of this estate bas been entered, and they alone are tbe parties- entitled to appeal under See. 335 of tbe Civil Practice Act. Tbe executor, as sucb, can bave no individual preference (wbicb would entitle bim to an appeal,) as to tbe manner in wbicb tbe Court distributes tbe balance in tbe bands of tbe executor.…
1Opinion of the CourtTemple, J.
delivered tbe opinion of tbe Court, Bhodes, Ob. J., CrooKett, J., and Wallace, J., concurring:
Upon tbe application of tbe executor, tbe Probate Court caused tbe proper notice tobe given to all parties interested, and on tbe return day of tbe notice proceeded to distribute tbe estate of tbe deceased among tbe legatees named in tbe will.
Tbe amount distributed is precisely tbat wbicb, upon final settlement, was found in tbe bands of tbe executor, and wbicb, in bis petition, be asked to bave distributed. There is no complaint tbat be is required to pay over more tban be bas, or tbat tbe entire…
2Cited by33 opinions
- Jones v. LamontCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Estate of KesslerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
- Braeuel v. ReutherSupreme Court of Missouri · 1917
- Rice v. CareyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- Steinberger v. YoungCalifornia Supreme Court · 1918
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.