Healy v. Buchanan

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1868Published

Before: Crockett

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. An administrator's claim to recover estate property is not barred by the doctrine of stale demands when the defendants are recent intruders without title who entered the property after the administrator's appointment.

Issues

Whether a claim by an administrator to recover estate property becomes stale due to a seventeen-year delay in the appointment of the administrator.
Whether a recent intruder without title can invoke the doctrine of stale demands to defeat an administrator's action for possession.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“an intruder without title, whose possession commences a few days after the grant of letters on the estate, should not be allowed to allege that the claim of the plaintiff is stale as to him.”

“they have no equities to be protected against a stale demand.”

“a recent intruder on the property of the estate, whose possession commenced after the grant of letters, cannot invoke such a presumption to aid a naked trespass.”

Synopsis

Stale Demand—Administration.—The plaintiff was appointed administrator of the estate of P seventeen years after P.'s death, and shortly thereafter brought action against B. and others to recover possession of a lot in San Francisco, and alleged in his complaint that P. died seized and possessed of said lot; that in February, 1867, after appropriate proceedings therefor, plaintiff had been appointed administrator of the estate of P.; that by virtue of said appointment the plaintiff, on the 1st day of March, 1867, became, and from thenceforth was and still is, entitled to the possession of said lot; that whilst plaintiff was so seized and entitled to the possession, the defendants, B. and others, on the 2d day of March, 1867, wrongfully entered and expelled plaintiff therefrom, and have ever since wrongfully withheld the possession. The defendants demurred to the complaint on the ground, amongst others, that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, or to show that plaintiff is entitled to maintain the action. The demurrer was sustained and judgment passed for defendants. Held, first, that, considering the facts of the entry of defendants, without title, so late as March, 1867, and after plaintiff became administrator, as disclosed in the complaint, the cause of action declared on was not stale ; second, that there is no statute which limits the time within which letters of administration on the estates of deceased persons may be granted ; third, that in such a case no presumption of law arises that there had been a prior administration and that the estate had been closed; and fourth, that the demurrer was improperly sustained.

By the Court, Crockett, J.: The plaintiff, as administrator of Pott, brings this action to recover the possession of a lot in San Francisco. The complaint avers that Pott died in 1850 seized and possessed and entitled to the possession of the premises in controversy, and that in February, 1867, after appropriate proceedings for that purpose, the plaintiff was appointed administrator of the estate of Pott. The complaint sets out specifically the [569]proceedings in the Probate Court, and we do not understand that the regularity of these proceedings is questioned by the defendants. The complaint then avers that by virtue of his appointment as administrator, the plaintiff, on the 1st day of March, 1867, became, and from thenceforth was and yet is, entitled to the possession of said premises, and whilst the plaintiff was so seized and entitled to the possession, the defendants, on the 2d day of March, 1867, wrongfully entered and expelled the plaintiff therefrom, and have ever since wrongfully withheld the possession.

The defendants demurred to the complaint on the grounds:

First—That the Court had no jurisdiction of the persons of the defendants, or of the subject matter of the action.

Second—That the plaintiff* has not legal capacity to sue.

Third—That the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, or to show that the plaintiff:* is entitled to maintain the action.

Fourth—That the complaint does not state facts sufficient to show that the defendants have committed any wrong or injury to the plaintiff, or are in any respect answerable to the plaintiff.

Fifth—That the complaint is ambiguous, unintelligible and uncertain.

The demurrer was sustained by the Court, and the plaintiff* declining to amend, final judgment was rendered for the defendants, from which the plaintiff appeals.

The Court delivered no written opinion, and the record does not disclose the particular point on which the decision of the District Court was based; but we infer from the briefs of counsel that it was upon the ground that from the long period of seventeen years vdiich elapsed between the death of Pott and the grant of letters to the plaintiff the claim of plaintiff had become stale; and the Court would presume as a matter of law that the estate had long since been duly administered and its affairs closed. At all events these are

Healy v. Buchanan

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief