From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pennie v. Roach

Supreme Court of California
Jun 13, 1892
94 Cal. 515 (Cal. 1892)

Opinion


94 Cal. 515 29 P. 956 JAMES C. PENNIE, Administrator, etc., Appellant, v. JOHN ROACH, Executor, etc., Respondent No. 14838 Supreme Court of California June 13, 1892

         Department One

         94 Cal. 515 at 522.

         Original Opinion of May 13, 1892, Reported at 94 Cal. 515.

         JUDGES: Mr. Justice Harrison took no part in the decision.

         OPINION

THE COURT 522 A petition for a hearing in Bank having been filed, the following opinion was rendered thereon on the thirteenth day of June, 1892:

         The Court.

         Rehearing denied. In response to one point made in the petition for rehearing, we will say, in addition to the opinion heretofore filed, that that part of the decree in this case relating to the compensation and commissions of Philip A. Roach, deceased, properly construed, does not reserve any power to the superior court, sitting as a court of equity, to adjust, in this proceeding, the amount of commissions or compensation to be allowed to the administrators of the Blythe estate, or to apportion said amount among the respective administrators, but merely reserves the power to require payment to the defendant by the plaintiff, or his successor, of such sum as the probate court may award on final settlement of the Blythe estate to the representatives of Philip A. Roach for his services as administrator.


Summaries of

Pennie v. Roach

Supreme Court of California
Jun 13, 1892
94 Cal. 515 (Cal. 1892)
Case details for

Pennie v. Roach

Case Details

Full title:JAMES C. PENNIE, Administrator, etc., Appellant, v. JOHN ROACH, Executor…

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Jun 13, 1892

Citations

94 Cal. 515 (Cal. 1892)
29 P. 956

Citing Cases

Watson v. Sutro

While it is true the witness Stoney did not segregate the value of the services rendered by his firm in…

United S. Fid. Guar. Co. v. Durrin

See a full discussion of the subject in Pomeroy, supra, Section 1153, and the exhaustive notes attached to…