Legal Opinion

Siddall v. Harrison

California Supreme Court

Decided October 7, 1887No. 11675PublishedCited by 12 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the Court

emple, J.

This action is brought against the exec-of the will of Elizabeth Traylor, deceased, and a many other persons who do not appear to have a,ny interest in the estate, or in the controversy, and no reason is shown in the complaint why they are or should be joined as defendants.

The plaintiffs are not mentioned in the will, and claim no interest under it, but they aver that either plaintiff Siddall is the sole heir, or that her co-plaintiff, White, is alone entitled to share the estate with her as heirs at law. By the terms of the will all the property of the-testatrix is disposed of, but…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Rosenberg v. FrankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
  2. Crosby v. MasonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1865

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Goad v. MontgomeryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  2. Schlyen v. SchlyenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
  3. More v. MoreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
  4. In re John's WillOregon Supreme Court · 1896
  5. Estate of WhiteCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945

7 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