Estate of Fuller

Good Law
2 Coffey 521
Superior Court of California, County of San FranciscoAugust 24, 1892No. 9747California2,483 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Coffey, J.

Mr. Lyons was appointed by an order of this court, dated June 13, 1890, to represent certain minor heirs of decedent in proceedings in probate of will and administration of estate in this department.

Prior to his appointment Mr. Lyons appears to have been consulted by, and to have communicated with, the attorney for the executrix, and to have acted in anticipation of his appointment by the court. This appointment seems to have been assumed, notwithstanding the rule of this department then, theretofore, and ever since hitherto in existence:

Despite this rule based upon reason and experience, Mr. Lyons applied to the court in a letter of which a copy is here inserted:

Court Exhibit X, offered and read in evidence at 4:30 P. M„ July 21, 1892.

If proof were necessary to show the propriety of this rule, it is afforded by the circumstances of this claim for compensation.

Mr. Lyons was appointed in deference to the supposed desires of the family, as indicated by their attorney; although *525 the widow executrix testified upon the settlement of the account that she knew nothing about his appointment until his appearance in-court (June 13, 1890), and expressly repudiated all…

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.