§
Preston v. Comm'r

10 Cited authorities

  1. Poe v. Seaborn

    282 U.S. 101 (1930)   Cited 313 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding differences in federal tax treatment associated with operation of state community property laws consistent with constitutional requirement of uniformity

  2. United States v. Robbins

    269 U.S. 315 (1926)   Cited 93 times
    In United States v. Robbins, 269 U.S. 315, this court considered the character of the wife's estate during the existence of the community, and said (p. 326): "We can see no sufficient reason to doubt that the settled opinion of the Supreme Court of California, at least with reference to the time before the later statutes, is that the wife had a mere expectancy while living with her husband.

  3. Colgate v. United States

    280 U.S. 43 (1929)   Cited 5 times

    APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS. No. 74. Jurisdictional Statement Submitted October 14, 1929. Decided November 4, 1929. Under a Special Jurisdictional Act approved March 3, 1927, ( 44 Stat. 1807,) which referred back to the Court of Claims for rendition of a judgment certain findings of fact theretofore made by it and reported to Congress, and provided for an "appeal" to this Court by either party "upon or from any conclusion of law or judgment, from which appeals now lie in other cases," the review

  4. Stewart v. Stewart

    199 Cal. 318 (Cal. 1926)   Cited 49 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Docket No. L.A. 9131. September 2, 1926. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Albert Lee Stephens, Judge. Reversed. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Ernest A. Stewart in pro. per. for Appellant. Ida May Adams for Respondent. Burrel D. Neighbours and F.A. Jeffers, Amici Curiae, for Appellant. Ingle Carpenter, Chas. W. Fourl, Devlin Devlin, Robbins, Elkins Van Fleet, Dunne, Dunne Cook, John W. Preston and Allen G. Wright, Amici Curiae, for Respondent

  5. Roberts v. Wehmeyer

    191 Cal. 601 (Cal. 1923)   Cited 45 times
    In Roberts v. Wehmeyer, 191 Cal. 601 [ 218 P. 22], the supreme court has held that section 172a of the Civil Code has no application to a transfer by a husband of community real property acquired before that section was enacted in 1917.

  6. Spreckels v. Spreckels

    116 Cal. 339 (Cal. 1897)   Cited 65 times
    In Spreckels v. Spreckels, 116 Cal. 343, 48 P. 228, 36 L.R.A. 497, 58 Am.St.Rep. 170, it was distinctly held that the statute requiring the consent of the wife to gifts of community property did not apply to property acquired prior to the passage of the statute of 1891, for such a construction, if adopted, would deprive a husband of his vested property rights in the community.

  7. In re Estate of Burdick

    112 Cal. 387 (Cal. 1896)   Cited 62 times

    Appeals from a decree of final distribution, from an order refusing to suspend the decree of distribution, and from an order denying a motion for distribution to trustees. John Ellsworth, Judge. COUNSEL: It was both the contractual and legal duty of the executor to return to the trustees the residue of the trust funds in his hands after settlement of his account, without any order of the court. (1 Story's Equity Jurisprudence, secs. 533, 534; Perry on Trusts, secs. 15, 346; Trecothick v. Austin,

  8. Estate of Moffitt

    153 Cal. 359 (Cal. 1908)   Cited 33 times

    S.F. No. 4896. April 20, 1908. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Alameda County directing the payment of an inheritance tax. T.W. Harris, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Olney Olney, and Warren Olney, for Appellants. Snook Church, for Respondent. HENSHAW, J. This is an appeal by the widow and the executors of the will of the deceased from an order and decree made by the superior court of Alameda County in probate, directing the executors to pay to the county treasurer

  9. Van Maren v. Johnson

    15 Cal. 308 (Cal. 1860)   Cited 49 times
    In Van Maren v. Johnson, 15 Cal. 308, it is said that the estate of the common property is in the husband, and he may dispose of it as he can of his separate estate -- the interest of the wife being a mere expectancy.

  10. Packard v. Arellanes

    17 Cal. 525 (Cal. 1861)   Cited 27 times
    In Packard v. Arellanes, 17 Cal. 525, the court said: "No special remedy exists for the enforcement of the claims of creditors, or the protection of persons interested in the preservation of the property; but the general powers of the courts are sufficient to furnish any relief necessary for these purposes."