¶1I concur in the judgment and in what is said by Mr. Justice Thornton respecting .the construction of the will of Michael Reese, deceased. With respect to the question of jurisdiction, I would be inclined to hold, if the question was before us as an original proposition, that the construction of the will of a deceased person was, under our late Constitution and laws, within the exclusive province of the Probate Court. But the jurisdiction of the District Courts in such cases has been recognized by previous decisions of this Court, under which, it is probable, important property rights have vested, for which reason I think the question ought not now to be agitated.
58 Cal. 387
Rosenberg v. Frank
Decided July 1, 1881
California Supreme Court · decided 1881-07-01
<p>Appeal from a judgment for the plaintiffs and from an order denying a new trial, in the Fourth District Court, City and County of San Francisco. Morrison, J.</p> <p>A petition for rehearing was filed in this case after the decision in Bank, and denied.</p>
Cited in Ballentine's (1916)’s definition of “Pro rata”
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1881-07-01
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2015 · most notably Bacon v. Bacon (1907), McConnell v. Doolittle (1920)
30 state decisions
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 →