Taylor

Golden Gate Undertaking Co. v. Taylor

Bad Law
168 Cal. 94·1914 Cal. LEXIS 295·141 P. 922
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJune 26, 1914S.F. No. 6272.California2,534 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

This is an action brought to recover the value of materials furnished and services rendered in the matter of the burial of James D. Taylor.

It was alleged that at the time of the death of James D. Taylor and for about fourteen days thereafter there were no relatives or heirs at law surviving deceased in the state of California ; that shortly before his death James D. Taylor requested Aimer F. Veale, his attending physician, to take charge of his body and upon his death to make all funeral arrangements ; that said deceased left a will wherein he appointed Aimer F. Veale and Bee Taylor as executor and executrix, respectively; that after the death of said James D. Taylor, the plaintiff, at the special instance and request of said Aimer F. Veale and at the special instance and request of said Bee Taylor, rendered services and supplied merchandise for and on account of the preparation, care, disposition, funeral, and burial of the body of said deceased, and that the reasonable value of said services and merchandise was and is the sum of one thousand one hundred-and ten dollars.

The complaint further states that subsequently, in May, 1903, the said will was admitted to probate and…

Concurring Opinion

Angellotti, J.

I concur in the judgment, but not for the reasons stated in the foregoing opinion. I adhere to the views expressed in my dissenting opinion filed on the former decision of this case when the judgment and order appealed from were affirmed. That opinion was as follows:

I therefore agree with the other members of the court in the conclusion that the demurrer to the complaint should have been sustained.

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.