Meroux v. Weber (1878) · DecisionDepot

Meroux v. Weber

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1878 No. No. 6123Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A decree enforcing a vendor's lien against heirs of an unadministered estate is valid and binding when the court had jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter.

Issues

Whether a decree enforcing a vendor's lien against heirs of an unadministered estate is void for lack of jurisdiction.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“That decree is not void. That Court had jurisdiction of the parties and the subject-matter of the action, and also to declare and enforce a vendor’s lien”

“the decree, so far as it affected the plaintiff’s title by succession, is valid.”

Synopsis

Vendor’s Lien —Title by Succession—In 1854, Weber sold certain lands in San Joaquin County to Meroux, who paid part of the purchase-price and gave his note for the balance. In 1858, Meroux died intestate, leaving a widow and two sons aged three and five years respectively. The estate was never administered upon. A year afterwards Weber, in an action against the widow and the children, the latter appearing by their guardian ad litem, obtained a decree of the District Court enforcing a vendor’s lien upon the land, in pursuance of which the land was subsequently sold to Weber : held, that the decree, so far as it affected the title of the children by succession, was valid, and they could not, after attaining majority, maintain ejectment for the land.

By the Court : The plaintiff claims title to the real estate in controversy by succession as one of the heirs of his deceased father." There was no administration upon the estate of Meroux, deceased. The defendant claims title under a decree of the District Court declaring and enforcing a vendor’s lien in an action brought by the present defendant against the present plaintiff and the others who claimed title by succession from Meroux, deceased.

That decree is not void. That Court had jurisdiction of the parties and the subject-matter of the action, and also to declare and enforce a vendor’s lien ; and its jurisdiction in that respect is not dependent upon the question whether all those who might have been bound by the decree were parties to the action. The title upon which the plaintiff now relies was before the Court in that action, and was charged with the lien; and the decree, so far as it affected the plaintiff’s title by succession, is valid. There would be more force in the objection to the decree if the decree could be held to operate so as to deprive the Probate Court of the power to subject the property to administration in the usual manner, as belonging to the estate of Meroux, deceased ; but there is no ground upon which such an effect could be attributed to the decree.

Judgment affirmed. Remittitur forthwith.

Meroux v. Weber

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief