Legal Opinion

Ellman v. Hammond

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided March 24, 1931PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKelly, J.

The executrix contends that her account should not be surcharged with the items embezzled by, or which she paid to, her attorney.

Whether these items may be surcharged on her account depends upon whether the executrix acted in reference thereto within the scope of her powers, with good faith and ordinary prudence, that is, with the same prudence and discretion that a prudent person, under like circumstances, is accustomed to exercise in such person’s own affairs: Douglass v. Stephenson, 75 Va. 747.

The necessity of employing agents and attorneys in the collection of assets involves the risk of…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Estate of WebbSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
  2. Bender's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
  3. Stanley v. United States National BankOregon Supreme Court · 1924
  4. Wilkes v. . HarperNew York Court of Appeals · 1848
  5. Wilkes v. HarperNew York Court of Chancery · 1847

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Kaufman v. Kaufman's Adm'rCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1942
  2. Laramore v. LaramoreSupreme Court of Florida · 1953
  3. Christie v. DoldSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1994
  4. In Re MildSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1957
  5. Matter of Estate of HellerCourt of Appeals of Iowa · 1986

1 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