Cunha v. Hughes
Citations
- 122 Cal. 111
- 54 P. 535
- 1898 Cal. LEXIS 542
Syllabus
<p>Estates oe Deceased Persons—Community Property—Distribution—Eights op Widow—Election.—The surviving widow-takes her rights in the community property by succession from the husband; and her rights theiein are concluded by the decree of distribution of his estate, if not appealed from, whether she has elected to take her one-half interest, or to take a life estate in the whole under his will.</p> <p>Id.—Eppect op Decree op Distribution.—The decree of distribution, when final, becomes the measure of the rights of all claimants to the estate, and their rights are to be determined by the terms of the decree.</p> <p>Partition—Allotment op Community Property to Husband and W'ipe.—The community character of property purchased by the husband is not changed by a subsequent decree in partition allotting it to the husband and wife jointly. That decree conferred no new or additional title upon the wife.</p> <p>Homestead—Declaration by Wipe.—A declaration of homestead by a wife must contain the statement required by section 1263 of the Civil Code, “showing that her husband has not made such declaration, and that she therefore makes the declaration for their joint benefit,” and if it omits such statement it is ineffectual.</p>
Judges: Harrison
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
19 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Kelly-Hansen v. Kelly-HansenCourt of Appeals of Washington· 1997-08-15· cited 54×
- Palmquist v. SagstadWashington Supreme Court· 1910-02-15· cited 50×
- Callnon v. WinrottCalifornia Supreme Court· 1969-01-20· cited 41×
- Strangman v. DukeCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1956-03-23· cited 38×
- Stevens v. TorreganoCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1961-05-15· cited 33×
- Connolly v. Probate CourtIdaho Supreme Court· 1913-10-25· cited 28×
- Johnson v. BraunerCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1955-03-22· cited 23×
- Schuler-Knox Co. v. SmithCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1943-12-23· cited 22×
- Metzger v. VestalCalifornia Supreme Court· 1935-02-27· cited 17×
- Kilmartin v. NasoCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1951-06-01· cited 15×
- Williams v. MarxCalifornia Supreme Court· 1899-03-15· cited 12×
- Bosma v. HarderOregon Supreme Court· 1919-12-02· cited 11×
- Tom Samuels, Trustee of the Estate of Dominic Michael Delucchi, Bankrupt v. Dominic Michael DelucchiNinth Circuit· 1961-01-13· cited 10×
- McKenzie v. BuddCalifornia Supreme Court· 1899-08-22· cited 10×
- Nash v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'nCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1955-04-13· cited 9×
- Estate of CecalaCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1951-06-01· cited 8×
- Shumaker v. BiscailuzCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1955-01-26· cited 5×
- In Re MerriamSupreme Judicial Court of Maine· 1968-05-07· cited 4×
- In re Estate of FosterCalifornia Superior Court, San Francisco County· 1909-03-09
Cites
7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- William Hill Co. v. LawlerCalifornia Supreme Court· 1897-03-26· cited 72×
- Christal v. TresconyCalifornia Supreme Court· 1898-01-11· cited 34×
- Wade v. DerayCalifornia Supreme Court· 1875-07-01· cited 26×
- Jewell v. PierceCalifornia Supreme Court· 1898-02-12· cited 20×
- Noe v. SplivaloCalifornia Supreme Court· 1880-07-01· cited 9×
- McBrown v. DaltonCalifornia Supreme Court· 1886-06-29· cited 9×
- Booth v. GaltCalifornia Supreme Court· 1881-07-01· cited 7×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.