Howard v. Bennett

McCOMB, J.

From a judgment in favor of plaintiff after trial before the court without a jury in a declaratory relief action for the purpose of having construed certain provisions of a will, defendants appeal.

These are the undisputed facts:

Lilly B. Howard died testate November 9, 1938. November 16, 1938, her will was duly admitted to probate in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County sitting in probate. June 13, 1939, plaintiff filed in the superior court the present action, seeking to have the court declare plaintiff’s rights under the terms of decedent’s will, should he defend and prosecute actions concerning property which some of the beneficiaries of decedent claimed to belong to decedent’s estate.

*

By appropriate proceedings defendants questioned the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the present action.

This is the sole question necessary for us to determine:

Where a superior court sitting in probate can give full relief, does it have exclusive jurisdiction to construe the terms

[548]

of a will in an estate which it is administering so as to deprive the superior court in general of jurisdiction to entertain a declaratory relief action for the purpose of construing the terms of said will?

This question must be answered in the affirmative. Section 1060 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides for a declaratory relief action, was not designed to deprive the superior court sitting in probate of its exclusive jurisdiction to construe the provisions of a will and determine the rights of the parties thereunder. (See

Pennington

v.

Green,

152 Kan. 739 [107 P. (2d) 766, 768];

In re List’s Estate,

283 Pa. 255 [129 Atl. 64];

In re Lochrie’s Estate,