In re Moore

Good Law
1891 Cal. LEXIS 636·88 Cal. 1·25 P. 915
Supreme Court of CaliforniaFebruary 10, 1891No. 14062California1,184 words

Opinion

Concurring Opinion

Paterson, J.

I concur. Some of the items in the account seem on their face to show an attempt to improve the property, rather than to preserve it; but as the witness Gope testified that all the work done was necessary to put the house in tenantable condition, and as there is no evidence to the contrary, except an inference which may arise from the apparent nature of the work done, it cannot be said that the order of the court is not supported by the evidence.

I think the burden of proving the necessity of the expenditures rested upon the administratrix as to all items objected to, and if all the evidence introduced is in the bill, the court ought to have rejected the item of buggy-hire. The bill, however, does not purport to contain all the evidence introduced, and if it did, the item referred to is so small that counsel for appellant would not desire a reversal or modification on account of an error as to it alone.

Lead Opinion

Harrison, J.

The special administratrix of William H. Moore, deceased, having filed her final account for settlement, the heirs of the decedent filed objections to the allowance of certain items therein, and the court, after hearing the parties thereto, settled the account by allowing a number of the items objected to, and disallowing the remainder. From this order the heirs have appealed to this court.

The chief objection to the action of the court is its allowance for certain expenditures in the repairs of the Pacific Ocean House. Prior to making these repairs, the special administratrix had obtained an order from the superior court, allowing her to expend a certain sum of money for said repairs, in which was designated the particular repairs to be made, and the amount allowed for each, and winch also declared “the above amounts being the full costs of repairs, which said administratrix is authorized to make. ” After obtaining this order she proceeded with the repairs, and completed some at less expense than she was authorized to make, while in others she expended more than was permitted by the order; and she also made other repairs which were not included within the order; so that the…

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.