Patterson v. Patterson

California Court of Appeal May 6, 1931 No. Docket No. 7773.Published

Before: Houser

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the appointment of the respondent as administratrix, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's implied finding of parentage and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in evidentiary or procedural rulings.

Issues

Was the evidence sufficient to support the trial court's implied finding that the respondent was the daughter of the decedent?
Is a child a competent witness to testify to the fact of their own parentage?
Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the evidence to which reference has been had was also sufficient to justify the implied finding which was made by the trial court”

“a child may be a competent witness to testify to the fact of his parentage”

“The decision of the question of whether a new trial should be granted rested in the sound discretion of the trial court”

[18]

HOUSER, J.

Following the decease of Maude Ganes, one Fannie 0. Patterson, who claimed to be her daughter, petitioned the superior court for an order by which she would be appointed administratrix of the estate of said deceased ; to which petition one Charles E. Patterson, as nominee of two nieces of said deceased, filed written objections. Later, by a separate instrument, the said Charles E. Patterson, as such nominee, petitioned the superior court that he be appointed administrator of said estate; to which petition Fannie 0. Patterson likewise filed her written objections. On the hearing of said two petitions a “decree” was rendered by the trial court by which letters of administration in said estate were ordered to issue to- the said Fannie 0. Patterson. It is from such order or judgment that the appeal herein is presented.

Appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient “to justify the decision or order of the court”.

It is conceded that the legality of the order or judgment here under consideration rests upon the determination of whether the evidence was sufficient to justify the implied finding by the trial court that Fannie 0. Patterson was the daughter of said deceased. In that connection, among other facts disclosed by the record herein, the following may be noted: From a very early period in the lifetime of Fannie O. Ganes and extending to a time when she was nearly a young woman, she was a member of the family of said deceased and lived in the household with her and her husband, James E. Ganes. Each of them addressed Fannie as “daughter”. An entry in the family Bible of the deceased shows the birth of “Fannie O. Ganes, Feb. 2, 1897.” James E. Ganes predeceased his wife Maude Ganes. In the petition presented to the superior court for distribution of his estate, which was signed by his widow Maude Ganes, the relationship between Fannie and the deceased is thus described: “Fannie is the daughter of James E. Ganes, deceased.” A representation contained in an insurance policy issued in 1903 upon the life of Fannie O. Ganes (when Fannie was a mere child) shows that James E. Ganes, the husband of the deceased, sustained the relation of “father” to Fannie. In a policy of life insurance issued to the de

[19]

Patterson v. Patterson

AI Brief

HOUSER, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief