§

Harrell ex rel. Jameson v. Comm'r

20 B.T.A. 103 (B.T.A. 1930)
Harrell ex rel. Jameson v. Comm'r

9 Cited authorities

  1. Raulet v. Northwestern National Ins. Co. of Milwaukee

    157 Cal. 213 (Cal. 1910)   Cited 72 times
    Holding that insured parties would not be stringently bound to contract provisions because "[i]t is a matter almost of common knowledge that a very small percentage of policy-holders are actually cognizant of the provisions of their policies. . . . [I]n their numerous conditions and stipulations [insurance contracts] furnish what sometimes may be veritable traps for the unwary."

  2. Cooley v. Miller & Lux

    156 Cal. 510 (Cal. 1909)   Cited 69 times
    In Cooley v. Miller Lux (1909) 156 Cal. 510 [ 105 P. 981], Tasker v. Cochrane (1928) 94 Cal.App. 361 [ 271 P. 503] questioned on another point in Reinstein, Land Katz v. Clune (1973) 30 Cal.App.3d 321, 323 [ 105 Cal.Rptr. 454] and Sime v. Hunter (1921) 55 Cal.App. 157 [ 202 P. 967], the courts acknowledged the difference between costs of litigation (such as transmission and filing fees) and the personal and traveling expenses of an attorney.

  3. Western Pacific Railway Company v. Godfrey

    166 Cal. 346 (Cal. 1913)   Cited 43 times
    In Western P. R. Co. v. Godfrey, 166 Cal. 346, 136 P. 284, Ann.Cas.1915B, 825, the court held that a legatee who does not renounce a legacy of stock, and to whom it is distributed, becomes liable on the stockholder’s liability from the date of the testator’s death.

  4. Martinovich v. Marsicano

    137 Cal. 354 (Cal. 1902)   Cited 52 times
    In Martinovich v. Marsicano, 137 Cal. 354, 70 P. 459 (1902), it was held that there was no statute authorizing the court to assign a share of an estate to one who holds a judgment lien or other incumbrance thereon made or suffered by the heir subsequent to the death of the ancestor; and in Estate of Howe, 161 Cal. 152, 118 P. 515 (1911), it was held that the probate court had no power to appropriate the estate of a legatee to the payment of his debts.

  5. Estate of Bernal

    165 Cal. 223 (Cal. 1913)   Cited 26 times

    S.F. No. 6307. March 26, 1913. APPEALS from portions of a decree of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco settling the final account of an executor, and finally distributing the estate of a deceased person. J.V. Coffey, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Sullivan Sullivan and Theo. J. Roche, and John J. O'Toole, for Appellants. Norman A. Eisner, for Respondent. ANGELLOTTI, J. These are appeals by various parties from portions of the decree of settlement

  6. Estate of Daly

    202 Cal. 284 (Cal. 1927)   Cited 8 times

    Docket No. S.F. 12015. October 17, 1927. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco denying in part a petition for partial distribution. Thomas F. Graham, Judge. Reversed. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Jos. T. O'Connor, Alexander McCulloch and Cross Brandt for Appellant. Karl C. Partridge and Cullinan Hickey for Respondents. SHENK, J. This is an appeal from an order denying in part a petition for partial distribution. The decedent, John

  7. Moore's Ex'r v. Moore

    50 N.J. Eq. 554 (Ch. Div. 1892)   Cited 30 times
    In Moore's Ex'r v. Moore (Van Fleet, V. C.; 1892) 50 N. J. Eq. 554, 565, 25 Atl. 403, a bequest to the German Theological School at Bloomfield, N. J., was held a good bequest to the German Theological School of Newark, N. J., which had a school at Bloomfield.

  8. Chever v. Poy

    82 Cal. 68 (Cal. 1889)   Cited 31 times
    In Chever v. ChingHong Poy, 82 Cal. 68, one of the heirs of Chever, to whom a share of the estate was distributed, had, pending administration, conveyed his interest in the estate to his mother, and it was held he took nothing by the distribution; that the title vested in him on the death of his father by operation of law, and passed by the conveyance to his mother; that the decree of distribution is not the creation of any new title, but a mere determination of the person to whom the title of the ancestor had descended.

  9. In re Estate of Zeile

    74 Cal. 125 (Cal. 1887)   Cited 3 times

    Department One Hearing in Bank denied. Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco distributing the estate of a deceased person, and from an order refusing a new trial. COUNSEL: The legacies given by the Rottweil codicil are merely cumulative. (2 Bouv. Law Dict., p. 21, and cases cited; 2 Redfield on Wills, 178-181, 507; De Witt v. Yates, 10 Johns. 156; 6 Am. Dec. 326; Hurst v. Beach, 5 Madd. 351; Duke of Albans v. Beauclerk, 2 Atk. 636; Cunningham v. Spickler