Estate of Hartson

In Re Estate of Hartson

Good Law
1933 Cal. LEXIS 536·218 Cal. 536·24 P.2d 171
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 22, 1933Docket No. Sac. 4759.California1,553 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Seawell, J.

This in an appeal from an order denying appellants’ protests to the eighteenth account of the trustee under the will of Electa B. Hartson, and from an order approving the account of said trustee. The facts giving rise to the controversy are as follows:

In the year 1902 Electa B. Hartson died testate in the city of Napa, California. Her will was duly admitted to probate and the final decree of distribution made and entered in 1903. By the decree of distribution it was directed in conformance with the provisions of the will, that certain property should be held in trust, and that the income therefrom should be paid monthly to certain named beneficiaries for and during the lifetime of.her three children or the survivor of them. So far as pertinent here the decree of distribution provided as follows:

The trustees entered into possession of the properties and for many years the monthly income was paid to the four persons above named in accordance with the above-quoted provisions of the decree. On April 30, 1928, Burnell C. Hartson, one of the children of Electa Hartson, died, leaving surviving him as his only legal heirs Elizabeth Hartson, his wife, and Ethel Hartson Turner, his…

Concurring Opinion

Thompson, J.

I concur in the decision and the opinion if my understanding of the paragraph relating to the nonobservance of section 2 of Rule VIII governing appellate procedure is correct, which is: that it is a warning to the profession generally that there must be a compliance with the rules and that for failure in that respect the appeal may be dismissed.

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.