"{\"id\": \"12127512\", \"name\": \"In the Matter of the Estate of MARTINA CASTRO DEPEAUX, Deceased\", \"name_abbreviation\": \"In re the Estate of Depeaux\", \"decision_date\": \"1897-09-15\", \"docket_number\": \"S. F. No. 825\", \"first_page\": \"290\", \"last_page\": \"290\", \"citations\": \"118 Cal. 290\", \"volume\": \"118\", \"reporter\": \"California Reports\", \"court\": \"Supreme Court of California\", \"jurisdiction\": \"California\", \"last_updated\": \"2021-08-11T00:26:42.777782+00:00\", \"provenance\": \"CAP\", \"judges\": \"Harrison, J., and Garoutte, J., concurred'.\", \"parties\": \"In the Matter of the Estate of MARTINA CASTRO DEPEAUX, Deceased.\", \"head_matter\": \"[S. F. No. 825.\\nDepartment One.\\nSeptember 15, 1897.]\\nIn the Matter of the Estate of MARTINA CASTRO DEPEAUX, Deceased.\\nEstatus or Deceased Peesons\\u2014Obder Refusing Letteks or Administration\\u2014IMBUED FINDING\\u2014INSUFFICIENT BlLD OF EXCEPTIONS\\u2014APPEAD\\u2014 Evidence not Reviewabee.\\u2014Where an order refusing letters of administration of the estate of a deceased person is in general terms, it implies a finding against the petitioner upon all the material allegations of the petition; and if there is no specification of insufficiency of the evidence to justify the decision, the appellate court is precluded from looking into the evidence to ascertain its sufficiency to sustain the order.\\nAPPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Santa Cruz County refusing letters of administration. J. H. Logan, Judge.\\nThe facts are stated in the opinion of the court.\\nJ. F. Utter, A. H. Cohen, and J. J. Serivner, for Appellant.\\nWilliam T. Jeter, and Charles B. Younger, for Eespondents.\", \"word_count\": \"270\", \"char_count\": \"1667\", \"text\": \"VAN FLEET, J.\\nAppeal from an order refusing a grant of letters of administration upon the estate of deceased to appellant.\\nThe record presented by appellant does not enable us to review the order of the court below in denying the application for letters. The order is general in terms, implying a finding against petitioner upon all the material allegations of the petition, and there is in the bill of exceptions no specification of insufficiency of the evidence to justify the decision. We are therefore precluded from looking into the evidence to ascertain its sufficiency; to sustain the order. (Winterburn v. Chambers, 91 Cal. 170, 185.)\\nOrder affirmed.\\nHarrison, J., and Garoutte, J., concurred'.\"}"