Opinion · Utlaw Utah

IN RE HOWARD'S ESTATE, 108 Utah 314 (1945)

159 P.2d 595

Type
Opinion
Court
Utlaw Utah
Jurisdiction
Utlaw
Date
1945-05-31
Topic
general

IN RE HOWARD'S ESTATE, 108 Utah 314 (1945) 159 P.2d 595 In re HOWARD'S ESTATE.HOWARD et al. v. CRITCHLOW. No. 6784.Supreme Court of Utah. Decided May 31, 1945. EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed IN RE HOWARD'S ESTATE, 108 Utah 314 (1945). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

IN RE HOWARD'S ESTATE,108 Utah 314(1945)
159 P.2d 595
In re HOWARD'S ESTATE.
HOWARD et al. v. CRITCHLOW.
No. 6784.
Supreme Court of Utah.
Decided May 31, 1945.
EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS. Executors of testator's estate were justified in taking appeal from order of partial distribution to executor of deceased legatee's will in interests of estate, in view of nature of questions involved and not previously decided in state, so as to require award of costs on appeal against appealing executors on affirmance of order.

See 34 C.J.S., Executors and Administrators, sec. 535.
Appeal from District Court, Third District, Salt Lake County;Ray Van Cott, Judge.

Supplemental opinion.

For original opinion, see108 Utah 294,159 P.2d 586.
Elias HansenandJ.T. Hammond, Jr., both of Salt Lake City, for appellants.George A. CritchlowandWalter M. Critchlow, both of Salt Lake City, for respondent.
LARSON, Chief Justice.
Our attention has been called to the fact that the opinion handed down on the 23rd day of May, 1945,159 P.2d 586, awarded costs to respondent, but did not specify whether such award was against the appellants as executors of the Howard Estate, or against them personally. In view of the nature of the questions involved in the appeal, and affecting the estate, and which had not before been decided in this jurisdiction, we believe appellants were justified as executors in taking the appeal in the interests of the estate. The award of costs on appeal therefore runs in favor of the respondent and against the appellants as executors of the estate. They are not a charge against the executors personally, but an expense of administration.

McDONOUGH, TURNER, WADE and WOLFE, JJ., concur.Page 315