McCauley v. Harvey
Before: Wallace
Synopsis
Administration on an Estate.—If an administrator of an estate is appointed and qualifies, and afterwards, without his removal (a will having been found), another person is appointed administrator with the will annexed, and qualifies, the latter appointment supersedes the former administration, and the acts of the administrator with the will annexed are valid.
Objections to the Validity op Pbobate Sale op Land.— If the Probate Court acquires jurisdiction to direct a sale of the real estate left by the deceased, and the same is sold by the administrator with' the will annexed, and a deed given to the purchaser, objections, that the claim to pay which the sale was made was not a debt for which the land stood charged under the will, and that it was not presented to the administrator for allowance, should be taken in the Probate Court, or by appeal, and cannot be raised in a collateral action to partition the land.
Conflict between Sale by Heirs and by Probate Court.—If the grantee of a Mexican grant petitioned for its confirmation, and died during the pendency of the proceedings, and his children were substituted in his place, and the confirmation was made, and the patent issued to them, as his heirs, a sale of the land made under the direction of the Probate Court before the patent issues, will confer on the purchaser a better right than the heirs possess, and a Court of equity will inforce such right against the heirs, or a purchaser from them.
Limitation of Actions as between Tenants in Common.—If the possession of one, as a tenant in common, is not disturbed by his co-tenants, and there have been no acts of exclusion equivalent to an ouster by his co-tenants, they cannot claim the benefit of the Statute of Limitations as against his right or title.
By the Court, Wallace, C. J.: 1. The appointment of Weber as administrator with the will annexed, superseded per se all former administrations of the estate.
2. The proceedings in the Probate Court resulting in the sale made by Weber as administrator with the will annexed, were not defective in point of jurisdiction; and the other objections urged against the sale, even if they could have been maintained, should have been taken in the Probate Court or by appeal.
3. McCauley relies upon the sale made under the directions of the Probate Court, and in due course of administration, of the estate of Chabolla. The defendants, upon the other hand, claim through conveyances made by the heirs of Chabolla anterior to the probate sale, and a subsequent confirmation and patent from the United States Government, running directly to their grantors as such heirs.
[506]It is the settled doctrine of this Court that in such a case the sale made under the direction of the Probate Court confers the better right, and one which a Court of equity will, on proper application, enforce against the heir, or a purchaser from the heir. (Hartley v. Brown, 46 Cal. R. 201, and cases there cited.)
It only remains, therefore, to consider whether the Statute of Limitations, relied upon by the defendants, is effectual to bar the relief awarded to McCauley by the decree, and we think that this question must be answered in the negative. McCauley’s possession of the premises, as a tenant in common with the defendants, had never been disturbed; no ouster had occurred, and no acts of exclusion upon the part of the defendants, equivalent to an ouster, had taken place.
It is apparent that, under such circumstances, the Statute of Limitations has no application. A person all the while in possession according to his right, cannot, while holding the possession, be divested of that right in favor of another. If authority be needed in support of a proposition so self-evident, it may be found in Love v. Watkins, 40 Cal. 547.
In this view it becomes unnecessary to inquire whether the equities of McCauley are to be considered as having been alleged in the complaint as originally filed, or only at a subsequent period in the progress of the cause, for in either case the Statute, of Limitations would not avail the defendants.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)