Reed

Reed v. Hollister

Good Law
1919 Cal. App. LEXIS 590·44 Cal. App. 533·186 P. 819
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 2, 1919Civ. No. 3014.California1,544 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Bardin, J.

pro tem.—This is an action by the plaintiff, 'as administrator of the estate of Frances S. Furry, deceased, 'to require the defendant to account for certain moneys alleged to constitute a part of the assets of the estate of said deceased. The plaintiff obtained judgment as prayed for and the defendant has appealed from the judgment. A statement, somewhat in detail, is necessary to a consideration of the points presented for review.

William H. Hollister, who was a resident of the state of 'New York, died in that state and his last will and testament was admitted to probate in that state on February 1, 1912, By the terms of this will the sum of thirty thousand dollars was bequeathed to George Stanton Hollister, a nephew of the testator, and a like amount to Frederick Hollister, also a nephew of the testator, and the defendant in this case.

Philoelea A. Hollister was the widow of George Stanton Hollister, a deceased brother of the testator, and the will above referred to contains the following provision:

Philoelea A. Hollister survived the testator, William H. Hollister, and in due time said sum of forty thousand dollars was paid to the Central Trust Company.

On October 7, 1912,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.