Finnerty

Finnerty v. Pennie

Good Law
100 Cal. 404·1893 Cal. LEXIS 808·34 P. 869
Supreme Court of CaliforniaDecember 6, 1893No. 15286California1,001 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Belcher, J.

In January, 1889, Matthew Connors died, owning an undivided one-half interest in certain real property, situate in the city and county of San Francisco, and leaving as his sole heir-at-law his father, Michael Connors. In June, 1889, Michael Connors also died, leaving as his sole heirs-at-law two daughters, Margaret O’Neill and Mary A. Connors. In November, 1889, Thomas Kirkpatrick was duly appointed administrator of the estate of each of the said decedents by the superior court of the city and county of San Francisco, and thereafter he duly qualified and entered upon the discharge of his duties as such.

In May, 1890, the said administrator rendered and filed in court a full account and report of his administration of each of the said estates, and accompanied the same with petitions for the final distribution thereof. These accounts were settled and allowed by the court, and in the matter of the estate of Matthew Connors, on the 16th of September 'following, it was ordered, adjudged and decreed that the undivided one-half of the said real property belonging to that estate be distributed *406 to Thomas Kirkpatrick as administrator of the estate of Michael Connors, “ subject to 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.