Estate of Pickett

Good Law
1 Coffey 93
Superior Court of California, County of San FranciscoNovember 7, 1885No. 4,371California299 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Coffey, J.

When Mrs. Pickett married Minihan, she ceased to the widow of the decedent and lost her right to administer. Being a married woman she had no right herself, and had nothing to confer upon her nominee, 0 ’Connell. The terms “surviving wife” and “widow” are synonymous, and are so treated in the statute and in the decisions, the supreme court commonly employing the term “widow” in the same signification as “surviving wife.” I have carefully conned and considered the brief of counsel for Mrs. Minihan’s nominee, and have examined all the authorities accessible with a view to discerning the distinction drawn by them between the principles involved in the authorities cited by counsel for absent heirs, and the point raised here; but my conclusion is that the sense of the statute, and the result of the decisions of the supreme court, is to exclude the widow upon her second marriage from the right of nomination. The Estate of Cotter does, as counsel contend, settle the point that a nonresident widow is entitled to nominate although disqualified from serving, because, as the court *94 said, the right to nominate “does not depend upon the matter of residence,” but it does depend upon 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.