Healy v. Superior Court

California Supreme Court Feb 27, 1900 No. S.F. No. 2060.Published

Before: Henshaw

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a public administrator is not required to provide an additional bond under section 1388 of the Code of Civil Procedure when appointed to an estate, as their official bond and oath serve in lieu of the bond required of other administrators. Consequently, the superior court did not exceed its jurisdiction in fixing the bond amount for the public administrator.

Issues

Whether a public administrator must provide a bond under section 1388 of the Code of Civil Procedure when appointed to an estate.
Whether the superior court exceeded its jurisdiction by fixing the public administrator's bond at an amount less than that required for other administrators.

Disposition. Writ discharged.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“By section 1727 the public administrator is clearly excepted from the operation of section 1388, and it is expressly declared that the official bond and oath of the public administrator are in lieu of the administrator’s bond and oath.”

“it was not necessary for the judge to have exacted any bond from the public administrator in addition to the one which he had given in his official capacity.”

Synopsis

PETITION for writ of review to annul orders of the Superior Court of Lassen County, fixing the bond of the public administrator, approving the same, and ordering the issuance of letters. F. A. Kelly, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

[660]

HENSHAW, J.

This is an original application for a writ of review, wherein certain orders of the superior court sitting in probate in the matter of the estate of Matthew Healy, deceased, are sought to be annulled.

There had been a contest over the issuance of letters of administration in the estate of Matthew Healy between the nominee of certain heirs of the deceased and J. W. Hosselkus, public administrator of the county. As an outcome of the contest, the court made findings favorable to the contention of Hosselkus. It found, also, that the value of the personal property in the estate of the deceased, and the probable value of the annual rents, issues, and profits of the real property, were “about the sum of eighty-five thousand dollars.” Letters of administration were ordered to Hosselkus as'follows:

“The petition of Louis Abrahams praying that letters of administration upon the estate of Matthew Healy, deceased, be issued to him, and the petition of J. W. Hosselkus praying that letters of administration upon said estate issued to him as public administrator of the county of Lassen, said state, together with the respective oppositions thereto, coming on regularly to be heard on the twenty-seventh day of October, 1897, and due proof having been made to the satisfaction of the court that the clerk had given notice of the hearing of each of said petitions in all respects according to law, and all and singular the law and the evidence being by the court understood and fully considered, and the court having filed herein its written findings of fact and conclusions of law therefrom, now, therefore, in accordance with said findings of fact, it is by the court here. adjudged and decreed that said Matthew Healy died intestate in the city and county of San Francisco on the twenty-sixth day of September, 1897; that he was a resident of Lassen county at the time of his death, and that he left estate therein and within the jurisdiction of this court.

“It is, therefore, in accordance with said findings, ordered that the petition of Louis Abrahams praying that letters of administration upon the estate of Matthew Healy, deceased, be issued to him, be and the same is hereby denied, and that J. W. Hosselkus be and he is hereby appointed administrator of said estate, and that letters of administration upon the said estate

Healy v. Superior Court

AI Brief

Synopsis

HENSHAW, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief