Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

40 Cal. 463

Bates v. Ryberg

California Supreme Court

Decided January 15, 1871

California Supreme Court · decided 1871-01-15

<p>Estates of Deceased Pebsons, Bight of Appeal. — The heirs and devisees or legatees of an estate, are made parties to the proceedings for a distribution, and any one of them feeling aggrieved may appeal from the final order.</p> <p>Idem. — Exeodtoe.—The executor of an estate cannot maintain an appeal from a final order of distribution, upon the grounds that the property was improperly divided between the legatees.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1871-01-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently July 1995 · most notably Ruggles v. Welch (1895), Jones v. Lamont (1897)

36 state decisions — followed in 12 states

801871188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Temple, J.

¶1delivered tbe opinion of tbe Court, Bhodes, Ob. J., CrooKett, J., and Wallace, J., concurring:

¶2Upon tbe application of tbe executor, tbe Probate Court caused tbe proper notice tobe given to all parties interested, and on tbe return day of tbe notice proceeded to distribute tbe estate of tbe deceased among tbe legatees named in tbe will.

¶3Tbe amount distributed is precisely tbat wbicb, upon final settlement, was found in tbe bands of tbe executor, and wbicb, in bis petition, be asked to bave distributed. There is no complaint tbat be is required to pay over more tban be bas, or tbat tbe entire estate bas not been distributed. All claims against tbe estate are paid, and tbe executor does not seem to bave any interest whatever in opposing tbe decree of distribution.

¶4Upon tbe distribution it was found, however, tbat tbe property belonging to tbe estate was insufficient to pay all tbe legacies in full, and tbe executor appeals on tbe ground tbat it was improperly divided between tbe legatees. Tbe only matter complained of is tbat some of tbe legatees are paid more tban they ought to bave received, while others received less tban they were entitled to by tbe terms of tbe will.

¶5Tbe heirs and devisees or legatees interested in an estate are made parties to tbe proceedings for a distribution ; any one of them feeling aggrieved may appeal from tbe final order. Tbe executor, however, does not represent any of these parties, as against tbe others, and if they are satisfied with tbe distribution be cannot complain because some bave *466received less than they are entitled to. He cannot litigate the claims of one set of legatees as against the others at the expense of the estate.

¶6The appeal must be dismissed.

¶7So ordered.

/40/cal/463 · .json · Public domain