In re Estate of Hamilton

Good Law
120 Cal. 421·1898 Cal. LEXIS 782·52 P. 708
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMarch 25, 1898S. F. No. 771California4,052 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Haynes, J.

Upon the petition of W. C. Murdoch, the guardian of said minor, an order was made directing the sale of certain personal and real property of said minor, a sale was had thereunder, and the appellant became the purchaser of certain of the real estate, and afterward opposed the confirmation of the sale on numerous grounds. The sale was confirmed, and appellant’s motion for a new trial was overruled, and this appeal is from the order confirming the sale, and from the order denying his motion for a new trial.

James H. Hamilton died seised of the real property in question, and of other estate, personal and real, in different parts of this state. His estate was administered and distributed, to his widow one-half, and to each of his four children one-eighth. Said minor, Creighton E. Hamilton, is one of said *423 children. Two others are also minors, and one, Ellen M., has attained her majority. Said W. C. Murdoch is also the guardian of the other two minors, and in a separate proceeding also obtained an order for the sale of their interests in the same property. The widow and Ellen M. were also desirous of selling their interests in the property involved in this appeal, and agreed that…

Concurring Opinion

Harrison, J.

I concur. Whether the will of James. H. Hamilton was properly admitted to probate is a question which does not arise in this case. The petition of Gordon to be appointed administrator of his estate sufficiently set forth the jurisdictional facts giving the court jurisdiction .to make the appointment and the order appointing him was made after the notice required by the statute had been given. The insertion. in this order and in the letters of administration issued to him, of the words “with the will annexed,” affected his authority only to the extent that he might attempt to carry out any provisions of the will which were at variance with the provisions of the statute in cases of intestacy. Th.e court, therefore, had jurisdiction of the estate, and. to set apart the land in question as a homestead. As the interest of the minor in these lands does not in any respect depend upon the will, it is immaterial whether it was properly admitted to probate or not.

Yan Fleet, J., concurred.

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.