Legal Opinion
In Re Estate of M. D. Foley
Nevada Supreme Court
Decided January 5, 1898No. 1518PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion.
W. E. F. Deal, R. M. Clarke, and C. A. Jones, for Appellant:
I. The jurisdiction of the district court in matters of probate is special and limited. The court has no power except such as is expressly conferred by the probate act. (Constitution of Nevada, art. VI, sec. 6;Lucich v. Medin, 3 Nev. 93, 99, 100; 10 Or. 301;Smith v. Westerfield, 88 Cal. 374, 378, 379;70 Cal. 350; 75 Cal. 512; Probate Laws Pr., sec. 1; 1 Am. Law of Administration, sec. 11, p. 11; sec. 142;Douglass v. Folsom, 21 Nev. 441, 447; In reHass, 97 Cal. 232; Buckley v. Superior…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Devlin v. . SmithNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
- Smith v. WesterfieldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Sanders v. . SoutterNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
- Zeimer v. AntisellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- In Re the Judicial Settlement of the Account of RandallNew York Court of Appeals · 1897
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- In re the Estate of ForneyNevada Supreme Court · 1921
- In Re Torres EstateNevada Supreme Court · 1942
- Flynn v. CasperColorado Court of Appeals · 1914
- Douglas Milling & Power Co. v. RickeyNevada Supreme Court · 1923
- In Re Devincenzi's EstateNevada Supreme Court · 1948
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.