In re the Estate of Welch
Citations
- 86 Cal. 179
- 24 P. 943
- 1890 Cal. LEXIS 997
Syllabus
<p>Estates of Decedents—Removal of Administrator.—While it is the duty of the courts to protect carefully the interests of estates, the rights of those who are appointed to take charge of and manage them should not be overlooked, and an administrator should not be removed except for good and sufficient cause.</p> <p>Id. — Insufficient Grounds for Removal — Payment upon Forged Order'—Mingling Property of Estate.—The court is not justified in removing an administrator and revoking his letters, on account of the payment of money to an attorney for minor heirs upon a forged order of the court, where it appears that he had previously paid him money under an allowance of the court on advice of bis attorney, and was led by the representations of the attorney for minor heirs to believe that the court would allow him a large sum, and had loaned him sums from his own money upon the faith of such representations, and advanced the remainder of the forged order out of his own money, which was not charged against the estate; nor can he be properly removed for mingling the property of the estate with his own, when it merely appears that he had the money of the estate on deposit in his own name in the bank, not having any money of his own in such bank, and the money of the estate being intact at the time of the order of removal.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that, because the defendant was not convicted of felony murder, his complaint about the way the indictment charged that offense was moot
- noting that a prosecutor ought not offer comparisons in the presence of the jury between the case at hand and other cases with which he or she is familiar
- seeing no plain error where the appellant pointed to no decision that failing to define “accomplice” in the pattern charge on accomplice testimony was error
- seeing no plain error where Appellant pointed to no decision holding that failing to define “accomplice” in the pattern charge on accomplice testimony was error
- finding no plain error where, inter alia, appellant pointed to no decision in which the appellate courts had found error of the type appellant was asserting
- “When an argument is ambiguous, [the Court is] reluctant to assume that the prosecutor intended [the] most damaging meaning.” (citation omitted)
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Works
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.