Court Opinion

ID: 9608078
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:05:34.665537+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:43.479729
License: Public Domain

THE COURT
On petition for rehearing, respondent questions the correctness of our construction of Probate Code, section 753, as authorizing a distribution to appellant by way of contribution of a portion of the property remaining in the estate. We can place no other reasonable construction on the language of the section: ‘ ‘ The court . . . must . . . decree the amount each person shall contribute, and reserve the same from his distributive share for the purpose of such contribution.”
In Estate of Stevens, 27 Cal.2d 108, 118 [162 P.2d 918], the court said (referring to this section): “If a right of contribution is eventually established, the total of the assets re*166maining in the estate from which contribution would be made should presumably be greater than if a compromise had not been effected, and thus the appellant’s ultimate distributive share of the estate will be greater.”
A petition for a rehearing was denied November 25, 1947, and the above opinion was then rendered.