Eproson v. Wheat
MARY E. EPROSON v. A. R. WHEAT, DANIEL ABBOTT, and C. N. GOTTSCHALK, Executors of the Estate of ROBERT EPROSON
- Area
- civil
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
By the Court :
The bequest of one hundred dollars made by the will of the decedent to the petitioner, his surviving wife, was not accepted by her, and does not bar her claim to have a homestead set apart for the benefit of herself and the minor child of the deceased, as provided by the Code of Civil Procedure, sec. 1465. Nor does the agreement for a separation, made between the decedent in his lifetime and his wife, the petitioner, bar her claim to such homestead. Upon the facts appearing in this case, it was the duty of the Probate Court, under the provisions of the section of the Code above cited, to set apart for the use *720of the surviving wife and the minor child of the deceased, the real estate, or a portion thereof, as a homestead.
Order reversed and cause remanded. Remittitur forthwith.
Cited by
- Hale v. Citizens National Trust & Savings Bank Docket No. 7956. · 1931-10-19
- Estate of Yoell S.F. 6201. · 1913-01-20
- Estate of Lufkin Sac. No. 825. · 1901-01-03
- Wickersham v. Comerford No. 14782 · 1892-11-10