No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 March 2017
* For a digest of the Eng case in the lower court, see 59 A.J.I.L. 390 (1965).
1 That section provides in pertinent part: “Administration of the estate of a person dying intestate must be granted to one or more of the following persons, who are entitled to letters in the following order, the relatives of the decedent being entitled to priority only when they are entitled to succeed to the estate or some portion thereof: “ (7) The relatives of a previously deceased spouse, when such relatives are entitled to succeed to some portion of the estate. “ ( 8 ) The public administrator.“
2 See California Probate Code, Section 228.
3 The California courts have held that the burden ia on the public administrator in a case like the present one. Estate of Bevilacqua,31 Cal. 2d 580, 584, 191 P. 2d 752, 756.
4 The Supreme Court of California denied further review.
5 In this connection, we are advised, for example, that travel controls are now maintained by the United States, and that Treasury controls over assets and financial transactions preclude the application of many provisions of the Treaty to the mainland. We are also advised that the institution of unilateral controls by the United States to trade with mainland areas under Communist domination is confirmed by diplomatic exchange between the Department of State and the Ambassador of the National Government of the Republic of China. These controls and regulations exclude from their effect the portions of China under the control of the National Government.
* 59 Stat. 1219; T8 994.