Stohr

Stohr v. Stohr

Good Law
148 Cal. 180·1905 Cal. LEXIS 656·82 P. 777
Supreme Court of CaliforniaNovember 8, 1905S.F. No. 4129.California1,177 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

McFARLAND, J.

The plaintiff is the daughter, and the defendant is the son, of Mrs. Clotilda R. Richardson, deceased, who died on the fourth day of March, 1903. Plaintiff and defendant are the only heirs at law of said deceased. Shortly after her death the plaintiff herein was appointed special administratrix of her estate, and commenced this action to obtain a judgment canceling and declaring null and void a certain written instrument dated the eighteenth day of August, 1902, purporting to be a deed executed by the deceased, and conveying to the defendant herein a certain piece or parcel of land, and decreeing that said property belongs to said estate. Judgment went for plaintiff, and from the judgment and from an order denying his motion for a new trial the defendant appeals.

After the commencement of the action a will of the deceased in which plaintiff and defendant are named as executrix and executor was probated, and the said parties qualified as such executrix and executor. Afterwards the court made an order substituting said O. 0. Stohr in her capacity as executrix, in place of herself as special administratrix, as plaintiff, and appellant makes the point that the judgment is erroneous…

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.