Legal Opinion

Blood Relatives of Hill v. Blood Relatives of Hill

California Supreme Court

Decided January 15, 1914No. S.F. No. 6380PublishedCited by 28 opinions

APPEAL from á judgment of the Superior Court of Humboldt County and from an order refusing a new trial. George D. Murray, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the Court

In a proceeding, under section 1664 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to determine heirship in, and rights of succession to, the estate of Stephen Hill, deceased, a judgment was entered declaring that a certain tract of land was the separate property of Stephen Hill and that the remainder of the estate was the community property of Stephen Hill and his wife Isabella Hill, who had died during the administration of Stephen Hill's estate. Both husband and wife had died intestate. The heirs of Isabella Hill were declared entitled to one-half of the separate property and three-fourths of the balance…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Breeze v. BrooksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
  2. In Re Estate of PepperCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
  3. Stanley v. GreenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859
  4. Warren v. HopkinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
  5. Estate of GrannissCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. Gossman v. GossmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
  2. Thomasset v. ThomassetCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
  3. Estate of NeilsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
  4. Bias v. ReedCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
  5. Falk v. FalkCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941

23 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