7 Cited authorities
Hills v. Superior Court
207 Cal. 666 (Cal. 1929) Cited 15 timesDocket No. L.A. 11307. July 29, 1929. PROCEEDING in Mandamus to compel the Superior Court of Los Angeles to grant family allowance to surviving husband. Harry R. Archbald, Judge. Writ denied. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. E.W. Cunningham for Petitioner. Hewitt, McCormick Crump for Respondents. CURTIS, J. Petitioner herein applied to the probate court of the county of Los Angeles for a family allowance out of the estate of his deceased wife. The petition was denied, and petitioner
Montgomery v. Trombley
267 N.W. 648 (Mich. 1936) Cited 2 timesDocket No. 117, Calendar No. 38,927. Submitted April 16, 1936. Decided June 16, 1936. Appeal from Wayne; Parker (James S.), J. presiding. Submitted April 16, 1936. (Docket No. 117, Calendar No. 38,927.) Decided June 16, 1936. In the matter of the estate of August Trombley, deceased. Petition by Marguerite Montgomery, administratrix de bonis non with will annexed of the estate of Ernestine Trombley, deceased, for an accounting and the allowance of a claim. From disallowance of claim, petitioner appealed
McKana v. Englund
251 N.W. 308 (Mich. 1933)Docket No. 90, Calendar No. 37,431. Submitted October 6, 1933. Decided December 5, 1933. Appeal from Delta; Bell (Frank A.), J. Submitted October 6, 1933. (Docket No. 90, Calendar No. 37,431.) Decided December 5, 1933. Bill by Lydia Knutsen McKana, Ellen Anderson, Albert G. Englund and Arnold Englund against Hannah Englund and State Savings Bank to specifically enforce a family settlement agreement as to the estate of Andrew Englund, deceased, and to enjoin payment of widow's allowance. Decree for
Deeble v. Alerton
58 Colo. 166 (Colo. 1914) Cited 13 timesIn Deeble v. Alerton, 58 Colo. 166, 143 P. 1096, where a husband and wife had executed a special agreement providing that neither should have nor claim any part of the other's estate, but containing no plain provision that the wife waived her widow's allowance in case of the husband's death, there was no waiver and the separation agreement was no bar to its allowance. It was there also held that a widow's allowance of her deceased husband's estate is not a distributive part of the estate, but part of the costs of the administration.
Estate of Cutting
174 Cal. 104 (Cal. 1916) Cited 10 timesS. F. No. 7647. December 19, 1916. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Alameda County refusing a family allowance. W.S. Wells, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. A.J. Treat, Paul A. Myers, and Wm. B. Kollmyer, for Petitioner. Allen L. Chickering, Warren Gregory, and Winfield Dorn, for Respondent Executors. W.H. Gorrill, for Respondent Pacific Unitarian School for the Ministry. MELVIN, J. On April 19, 1913, Francis Cutting and Alice Duren entered into a contract with
Estate of McSwain
176 Cal. 280 (Cal. 1917) Cited 8 timesS. F. No. 8178. Department One. October 11, 1917. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Geo. E. Church, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Frank Kauke, for Appellant. Everts Ewing, and M.G. Gallagher, for Respondents. SHAW, J. This is an appeal by Susie McSwain, as the administratrix of the estate of Walter S. McSwain, and also as the widow and heir at law of said deceased, from an order made by the superior court in the course of administration of said
In re Estate of Welch
106 Cal. 427 (Cal. 1895) Cited 29 timesDepartment Two Hearing In Bank Denied. Appeals from an order of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco directing the payment of a family allowance and from a decree of partial distribution. COUNSEL: A family allowance is a provision of a peculiar character, and intended for the present support of the family. It cannot be permitted to accumulate as a fund, and is waived by laches and the failure to demand it. (Barnum v. Boughton , 55 Conn. 117; Adams v. Adams, 10 Met. 170; Drew