Ruggles

Ruggles v. Welch

Good Law
106 Cal. 427·1895 Cal. LEXIS 623·39 P. 805
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMarch 15, 1895Nos. 15889, 15890California1,881 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Henshaw, J.

Two separate appeals are brought to this court by the special administrator of the estate, but they may advantageously be considered and determined together.

In the first (No. 15889) the special administrator appeals from an order directing him to pay the arrearage of family allowance which has accrued since the suspension of the general administrator.

In the second (No. 15890) he appeals from a decree of partial distribution, by which he is directed to pay five thousand dollars to the widow. All of the proceedings leading to this decree were had while there was no *429 general administrator, and while appellant was in charge of the estate.

In each appeal a motion to dismiss is made upon the ground that the appellant is not a party aggrieved; and in support of the motions are cited the numerous cases which decide that an executor or administrator has in general no such interest in the conflicting claims of heirs and devisees as will warrant his appeal from adjudications fixing their rights, and distributing the estate accordingly. (Bates v. Ryberg, 40 Cal. 465 ; Estate of Wright, 49 Cal. 551 , Estate of Marrey, 65 Cal. 287 ; Roach v. Coffey, 73 Cal. 282 ; Estate of Jessup, 80…

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.