IN RE: OUNJUIAN'S ESTATE. HINES et al. (1935)

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California.

IN RE: OUNJUIAN'S ESTATE. HINES et al. v. MILLER.

Civ. 9960.

Decided: January 29, 1935

Carlos S. Hardy, of Los Angeles, for appellant Albert P. Keck, guardian of Alea K. Ounjuian's Estate. H. C. Veit and J. C. Shunk, both of Los Angeles, for appellant Frank T. Hines, adm'r of Veterans' Affairs, and United States Veterans' Administration. Mills, Hunter & Dunn and C. R. Liljestrom, all of Los Angeles, for respondent.

It is suggested by petitioner that in rendering our decision we failed to take into consideration a statute relating to deposit in banks, of money, held by bonded fiduciaries. Stats. 1915, p. 1438; Deering's Gen. Laws, 1931 Ed., Act 8317.

The agreement between the guardian and the surety, providing for deposit of the funds, and for joint control thereof, was not made according to the statute. It did not provide for the deposit of such funds “in such manner as to prevent the withdrawal of such money and assets or any part thereof, without the written consent of such surety or sureties, or an order of court, or a judge thereof, made on such notice to such surety or sureties as such court or judge may direct.”

The petition for rehearing is denied.

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network