Elizalde v. Murphy
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Santa Barbara County, denying a new trial. B. T. Williams, Judge pro tem. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtAllen, J.
Action upon ah administrator’s bond. Judgment for plaintiff for a lesser amount than claimed in the complaint. Plaintiff appeals from the order denying a new trial.
It is made to appear in the record that one Craves was appointed administrator of the estate of Elizalde on the twentieth day of January, 1894, and executed a bond at the date of such appointment, and certain subsequent bonds, as required by the order of the court; that on May 28, 1898, said administrator filed his second annual account, which was duly allowed, from which it appears that on said date he held in his possession…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- In re the estate of MooreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- In re RoseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- In re Estate of LevinsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Toland v. EarlCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
- People v. JamesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- In Re Estate of ElizaldeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
- Elizalde v. MurphyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
- Burns v. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Co.California Court of Appeal · 1944
- Elizalde v. MurphyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1909
- Burns v. Massachusetts Bonding & InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.