Legal Opinion

Barusch v. Brainard

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided February 1, 1926No. 4646PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHunt, Circuit Judge

(after stating the facts as above). In the absence of a statute an executor cannot be held as garnishee in respect to a legacy of money bequeathed by his testator. Shin on Attachment, § 510; Drake on Attachments, §§ 492, 501; Colby v. Coates, 6 Cush. (Mass.) 558; Hudson v. Wilber, 114 Mich. 116, 72 N. W. 162, 47 L. R. A. 345, 68 Am. St. Rep. 465; Norton v. Clark, 18 Nev. 247, 2 P. 529; Whitehead v. Coleman, 31 Grat. (Va.) 784. The underlying reason of the decisions is that prior to a decree of distribution the estate is in the custody of the law, not subject to attachment which would delay…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Byers v. McAuleySupreme Court of the United States · 1893
  2. Martinovich v. MarsicanoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
  3. Dunsmoor v. FurstenfeldtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  4. In re Estate NeracCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
  5. In Re Estate of HoweCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Estate of LawrenceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
  2. Fount-Wip, Inc. v. GolsteinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1972
  3. Estate v. Joya, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
  4. United California Bank v. LawrenceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
  5. Estate of CasserleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2018

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