Halleck v. Guy
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, County of San Francisco. A statement of the facts appears in the opinion of the Court.
1Opinion of the CourtBurnett, J.
This was a bill to compel the defendant to pay the sum bid by him for certain lots sold by plaintiffs, as executors of Joseph L. Folsom, deceased, under an order of the Probate Court. The Court below rendered a decree for the plaintiffs, and the defendant appealed.
The first point made by the defendant is that the sale was not binding because there was no subscribing of the contract by the plaintiffs or their agent. The fate of this objection depends upon the question whether sales by executors and administrators, under our probate system, are judicial or ministerial. If judicial, the contract…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Mitchell v. HazenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1823
- Abell v. CalderwoodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1854
- Fox v. MenschSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1842
- Worthington v. McRobertsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1846
- Tryon v. ButlerTexas Supreme Court · 1853
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Estate of RuleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
- McCluskey v. WareCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
- Texas Co. v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'nCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
- Noland v. BarrettSupreme Court of Missouri · 1894
- In Re Standwaitie's EstateSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1918
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.