Slade v. Slade
Citations
- 122 Cal. 434
- 55 P. 158
- 1898 Cal. LEXIS 605
Syllabus
<p>Estates or Deceased Persons—Setting Apart Exempt Property to Widow—Implements oe Husbandry.—The farming utensils and implements of husbandry used by the decedent in the operation of a farm of three hundred acres, may be set apart to the widow as property exempt from execution, although, by the will of the decedent, only the dwelling-house and about forty acres of orchard and vineyard lands were devised to her, and the residue of the estate was devised to the children and grandchildren.</p> <p>Id.—Classes oe Husbandry not Regarded.—The law does not recognize classes of husbandry, nor limit its exemption of farming utensils and implements of husbandry to one particular class of several that may be followed by the farmer, and will not inquire whether they were used in agriculture, horticulture, or viticulture.</p> <p>Id.—Jurisdiction op Superior Court.—Upon a petition of the widow for an order setting apart to her the exempt property of the decedent, the superior court had jurisdiction to grant the prayer of the petition under section 1465 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and it is immaterial whether it granted the relief under a sense of compulsion, or in the exercise of a sound discretion, where nothing appears in the record to indicate an abuse of discretion.</p> <p>Id.—Presumption as to Future Allowance.—If the widow should petition for an allowance under section 1466 of the Code of Civil Procedure, after an order setting apart to her the exempt property, it must be presumed that the court will act with due regard to its previous order, and to the subsequent condition or the estate.</p> <p>Id.—Value of Exempt Implements—Amendment of Code—Immaterial Question.—If the inventory shows that exempt implements of husbandry set apart to the widow were of less value than one thousand dollars, it is not material to decide whether the amendment of March 27, 1897, to section 690 of the Code of Civil Procedure limiting the exemption to implements of the value of one thousand
Judges: Chipman
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
6 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Security-First National Bank v. PiersonCalifornia Supreme Court· 1934-12-17· cited 12×
- In Re HelmuthN.D. Oklahoma· 1988-11-01· cited 10×
- Sohner v. MasonCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1955-10-21· cited 7×
- Boehm v. Burleigh CountyNorth Dakota Supreme Court· 1964-09-11· cited 7×
- Laguna v. QuiñonesSupreme Court of Puerto Rico· 1916-01-25· cited 1×
- Tobin v. City of Wilkes-BarreLuzerne County Court of Common Pleas· 1931-03-27
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.