# Estate of Sutro

> California Supreme Court · June 24, 1909 · 155 Cal. 727

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3304876

## Case

- **Full name:** In the Matter of the Estate of Adolph Sutro, Emma L. Merritt, Individually and as Etc., and Trustee Under Will, William M. Morrow, George C. Pardee, E.E. Schmitz, Frank J. Murasky, and George A. Newhall, as Trustees Under Said Will, and the People, by U.S. Webb, Attorney-General v. Kate Nussbaum, Rosa Victoria Morbio, Clara A. English, Edgar E. Sutro, and John C. Brickell
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** June 24, 1909
- **Citations:** 155 Cal. 727; 102 P. 920; 1909 Cal. LEXIS 483
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence
- **Judges:** SHAW, J.
- **Cited by:** 49 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3304876

## Opinion text

I concur on the ground that the judgment in Sutro v. Merritt was valid and binding. Even if it did not control the action of the court in probate so as to require a distribution directly to the heirs, it had the effect of conclusively determining the title of the heirs as against the trustees and others claiming under the alleged trust. A distribution to the trustees would, by virtue of the prior judgment, have inured to the benefit of the heirs, and the probate court properly concluded that it might make final disposition of the rights of the parties by decreeing distribution to the heirs in the first instance.
Upon the validity of the trust, as an original question, I express no opinion.
Rehearing denied.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3304876. Public record. Not legal advice.