Legal Opinion

Spreckels v. Spreckels

California Supreme Court

Decided June 28, 1916No. S. F. No. 6753. In BankPublishedCited by 68 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Charles S. Wheeler, John F. Bowie, Cushing & Cushing, and Nathan M. Moran, for Appellants.

1Opinion of the Court

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] This is an action by Claus A. Spreckels and Rudolph Spreckels, as executors of the will of Anna C. Spreckels, and also in their capacity as executors of the will of Claus Spreckels, and by them and Emma C. Ferris, as individuals, to compel an accounting by the defendants respecting certain property received by them from the decedent, Claus Spreckels, in his lifetime, and for restitution thereof, so far as it exceeded one-half of the community property of Claus…

2Cases cited34 opinions

  1. Lady Washington Consolidated Co. v. WoodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  2. Spreckels v. SpreckelsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
  3. In re the Estate of BurdickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  4. Fanning v. GreenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
  5. Van Maren v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860

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

3Cited by68 opinions

  1. Estate of PlattCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  2. Bainbridge v. StonerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
  3. Blethen v. Pacific Mutual Life InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1926
  4. Droeger v. Friedman, Sloan & RossCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
  5. Stewart v. StewartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1926

63 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