Wickersham v. Wickersham
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Francis J. Heney, Cowan & Juillard, and C. A. S. Frost, for Contestants, Appellants in No. 3037, and Respondents in Cross-Appeal No. 3157. No estoppel is pleaded against Frank Wickersham on account of his contract to forego his expectancy in his mother’s estate; but if it was pleaded, the burden of proof would be on those claiming under it to show affirmatively that the contract was fair and just in all of its parts, and…
Read the full summary
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Francis J. Heney, Cowan & Juillard, and C. A. S. Frost, for Contestants, Appellants in No. 3037, and Respondents in Cross-Appeal No. 3157. No estoppel is pleaded against Frank Wickersham on account of his contract to forego his expectancy in his mother’s estate; but if it was pleaded, the burden of proof would be on those claiming under it to show affirmatively that the contract was fair and just in all of its parts, and founded upon an adequate consideration. (Civ. Code, secs. 700, 1045, 3391; Bruck v. Tucker, 42 Cal. 352; Cooper v. Pena, 21…
1Opinion of the Court
THE COURT.
Two appeals are before us 'in this ease, presented mainly on the same record. The one is an appeal from a decree of final distribution by Mrs. Cora Wickersham, widow and executrix of Frank Wickersham, deceased, and I. G. Wickersham, their son, a minor, who appears by his mother as guardian; the other, an appeal by the executors from an order granting the motion of the contestants for a new trial. The former appellants will be designated in this opinion as the contestants.
The deceased, I. G. Wickersham, died testate June 20, 1899, leaving an estate of the value of about $647,000, all…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- In re the Estate of GarcelonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- More v. MoreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- Estate of DavisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
- In re Estate of SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- In re the Estate of GilmoreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Tourette v. TouretteArizona Supreme Court · 1914
- Middlebrook v. PerkinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
- Bridge v. KedonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
- In Re Estate of WickershamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
- Estate of MooreCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.