Landis v. Grimes

California Court of Appeal Apr 4, 1940 No. [Civ. 11344Published

Before: Sturtevant

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that plaintiffs could not maintain an equitable action to vacate a probate order because they had already pursued adequate legal remedies through multiple contests in the probate court, rendering the matter res judicata.

Issues

Whether plaintiffs may maintain an equitable action to vacate a probate order after having already litigated the same subject matter in the probate court.
Whether the plaintiffs had a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The adverse decisions of the probate court upon their respective contests are, in full legal effect, res ad judicata.”

“It is therefore clear the plaintiffs not only had a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the probate court, but they have exercised such remedy.”

“It is obvious therefore that they may not resort to a court of equity.”

STURTEVANT, J.

In an action brought to obtain equitable relief against certain orders made in a proceeding in probate, the trial court sustained a demurrer, without leave to amend, to the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint. From the judgment entered in favor of the defendants, the plaintiffs have appealed.

For some time prior to his death W. E. Flatt was a stockholder in, and president of, the First National Bank of Lamanda Park. He owned 142 shares of the 250 shares issued and outstanding. The defendant Earl Grimes was the executive vice-president of the bank. On May 6, 1932, Flatt died testate. The defendant was appointed executor of the decedent’s will and the estate was administered, distributed, and the executor was discharged. The legatees and devisees of the decedent claimed the executor committed certain acts of fraud. They commenced two separate actions in equity. This one was brought against the executor and his bondsmen. The other action was brought against the bank. In the latter action the trial court sustained a demurrer to their second amended complaint but its judgment was reversed.

(Landis

First Nat. Bank,

20 Cal. App. (2d) 198 [66 Pac. (2d) 730]). Reference is made to that case for the facts which are there fully set forth. The plaintiffs assert the allegations of the complaint in the latter suit were the same as in the present one “ . . . except that in this complaint certain acts of extrinsic fraud in procuring an order of the probate court approving the executor’s account and report, wherein this sale by the pledgee was referred to, are alleged. ’ ’ The defendants do not controvert that statement but contend the two are not “companion eases”. As we see the facts, the distinction is immaterial in determining the merits of this appeal.

The plaintiffs earnestly press their allegations of fraud which they had also alleged in the Landis case. The defendants in a long brief seek to belittle said acts. But it is sufficient

[326]

to state that we are not inclined to criticize or disapprove any part of the decision in

Landis v. Grimes

AI Brief

STURTEVANT, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief