In re Estate of Gasq
Before: Temple
Synopsis
Allowance oe Attorney’s Fees in Settlement oe Estates.—A ruling of a Probate Court, in fixing the amount of compensation to be allowed an administrator in payment of counsel in the settlement of an estate, will not be disturbed, unless there is a plain abuse of discretion. Administrator using Estate Funds Chargeable with Interest.— Where an administrator did not keep the funds of the estate separate from his own money, but used them for his oym purpose; held, that he was properly chargeable with interest.
By the Court, Temple, J.: This Court will not reverse the ruling of the Probate Court in fixing the amount of compensation, which it would he proper to allow the Administrator in payment of counsel in the settlement of the estate, unless there is a plain abuse of discretion. Such matters are peculiarly within the knowledge of the Probate Judge, and it is very difficult for this Court to form any satisfactory conclusion upon the subject.
It is found that the Administrator had not kept the funds of the estate separate from his own money, but had used them for his own purposes. He was, therefore, properly chargeable with interest. (Utica Ins. Co. v. Lynch, 11 Paige, 525.)
Order affirmed.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)