gno.law

In re Estate of Gasq

California Supreme Court · No. 2,999 · 1871-10-15 · Published · 42 Cal. 288

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF JOSEPH MARIE GASQ

Area
probate
Panel
Jackson Temple (author)

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion — Temple

By the Court, Temple, J.:

This Court will not reverse the ruling of the Probate Court in fixing the amount of compensation, which it would he proper to allow the Administrator in payment of counsel in the settlement of the estate, unless there is a plain abuse of discretion. Such matters are peculiarly within the knowledge of the Probate Judge, and it is very difficult for this Court to form any satisfactory conclusion upon the subject.

It is found that the Administrator had not kept the funds of the estate separate from his own money, but had used them for his own purposes. He was, therefore, properly chargeable with interest. (Utica Ins. Co. v. Lynch, 11 Paige, 525.)

Order affirmed.

Cited by