Case Name: In the Matter of the Estate of EMILE BAUER, Deceased. HAMILTON A. BAUER et al., Appellants, v. LILY M. BAUER et al., Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1929-09-24
Citations: 208 Cal. 199
Docket Number: L. A. No. 11405
Parties: In the Matter of the Estate of EMILE BAUER, Deceased. HAMILTON A. BAUER et al., Appellants, v. LILY M. BAUER et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 208
Pages: 199–200

Head Matter:
[L. A. No. 11405.
In Bank.
September 24, 1929.]
In the Matter of the Estate of EMILE BAUER, Deceased. HAMILTON A. BAUER et al., Appellants, v. LILY M. BAUER et al., Respondents.
Crail, Shutt, Penprase & Miller, Hamilton A. Bauer, Joe Crail and Claude A. Shutt for Appellants.
Morin, Newell & Brown and J. W. Morin for Respondents.

Opinion:
THE COURT.
The appeal in this ease is "from the decree settling final account and ordering distribution and the order granting the motion of the executors to strike out and dismiss the exceptions to the final account filed by the contestants. '
The primary object of this appeal is to relitigate the questions decided in Bauer v. Bauer, 201 Cal. 267 [256 Pac. 820], and Estate of Bauer, 199 Cal. 98 [248 Pac. 507].
The question considered in said cited cases, to wit, the ownership of certain property omitted from the inventory and final account and claimed by appellants to be property belonging to said estate and again brought to our attention in Bauer v. Superior Court (S. F. No. 13357), ante, p. 193 [281 Pac. 61], this day decided, is sought to be revived. This cannot be done.
No serious question is raised as to any matter or item of accounting except the main question which is foreclosed by Bauer v. Superior Court, supra. We have examined the account and feel satisfied that it was justly settled. Many items were examined, passed upon and allowed or disallowed as the justice of the situation seemed to warrant. The allowances made to the attorney and executors for extraordinary services performed, considering the many proceedings instituted and objections made during the course of administration in an effort to oust them and obstruct them in the settlement of the estate, do not appear to be unreasonable. Neither do we find any error committed in the matter of distribution.
The decree and orders are affirmed.