Court Opinion

ID: 9792267
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:26:08.755751+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:41.575692
License: Public Domain

DORAN, J., Dissenting.
I dissent. The sole question involved is one of construction. It may be conceded that the doctrine relied upon in the prevailing opinion is properly applied to the facts in the decisions cited, but the phraseology of the agreement presented for construction in connection with the appeal herein, clearly contains and contemplates what the agreements in the cited cases lacked. That is to say, the phrase "including also all rights of . . . administration”, is clearly intended by the parties to deny to the widow the right to a family allowance. (Italics added.) Section 680 of the Probate Code provides that the widow is entitled to allowance during the progress of the settlement of the estate; thus the right to such allowance is a right of administration. What else could have been intended by the parties? There is nothing ambiguous, uncertain or doubtful about the meaning of the quoted words, and under elementary rules of construction it is the court’s plain duty to give to them full effect. In my judgment they are clear and explicit, within the application of the doctrine enunciated in the decisions upon which the prevailing opinion is based.
A petition by appellant to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on July 16, 1940.-Edmonds, J., voted for a hearing.