Case Name: In the Matter of the Estate of JOHN P. HARRINGTON, Deceased. AMELIA HARRINGTON, Appellant, v. UNION TRUST COMPANY, Executor, etc., et al., Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1903-09-22
Citations: 140 Cal. 294
Docket Number: S. F. No. 3200
Parties: In the Matter of the Estate of JOHN P. HARRINGTON, Deceased. AMELIA HARRINGTON, Appellant, v. UNION TRUST COMPANY, Executor, etc., et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 140
Pages: 294–296

Head Matter:
[S. F. No. 3200.
Department Two.
September 22, 1903.]
In the Matter of the Estate of JOHN P. HARRINGTON, Deceased. AMELIA HARRINGTON, Appellant, v. UNION TRUST COMPANY, Executor, etc., et al., Respondents.
Husband and Wife—Mistaken Belief of Death—Second Marriage after Dive Years—Validity—Family Allowance—Case Affirmed.—A second marriage contracted in good faith by the wife of a former husband, who was absent and not known by her to be living, or was generally reputed to be dead for the space of five successive years immediately preceding such second marriage, is valid until its nullity is adjudged by a competent tribunal; and if not so annulled, the wife cannot claim a family allowance from the estate of her former husband.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco refusing a family allowance. James M. Troutt, Judge.
The facts are stated in Estate of Harrington, ante, p. 244.
M. C. Hassett, and Samuel Shortridge, for Appellant.
Heller & Powers, Martin Stevens, and Beverly L. Hodghead, for Respondents.

Opinion:
THE COURT.
This is an application hy the alleged widow praying the court in probate to award her a family allowance from the estate of John B. Harrington, deceased. The court refused the application. The evidence upon the hearing is in all respects the same as that introduced upon the same alleged widow's application for a homestead, disposed of in the appeal in Estate of Harrington, ante, p. 244, filed September 18, 1903.
Upon the authority of that case the order appealed from is affirmed.
Hearing in Bank denied.
Beatty, C. J., dissented from the order denying a hearing in Bank in this case, and in case No. 3201, ante, p. 244, and filed the following opinion on the 17th of October, 1903:—