In re the Estate of Cook

Good Law
1890 Cal. LEXIS 696·83 Cal. 415·23 P. 392
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMarch 10, 1890No. 13396California1,077 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Paterson, J.

—This is an appeal from a decree of distribution. The case has been in this court before. ( 77 Cal. 220 .) The question to be determined is, whether Theodore T. Cook or William W. Richards is the surviving husband of Emma Cook, deceased. Each claims *416 that he is entitled to one half of her estate hi’ virtue of such relation. Cook was married to the deceased December 26, 1873. Richards, believing that she had been, divorced from Cook on April 23, 1880, was married to her in due form of law on May 30, 1880, and thereafter lived and cohabited with her as her husband until her death, November 30, 1883.

At the former hearing of the contest, the court below decided in favor of Cook, holding that as the decree of divorce had not been actually entered, he had never been divorced from Emma. On appeal, we reversed the decree, and remanded the cause for a new trial. On the last trial, the court below admitted the judgment roll in Cook v. Cook in evidence, held that the parties were divorced in that action, adjudged Richards to be the surviving husband, and entered a decree distributing one half of the estate to his assignee, Miller. From this decree Cook has appealed.

In the former…

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.