Reynolds v. Brumagim

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1880 No. No. 6,007Published

Before: Department, Myrick

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a probate court's decree settling an administrator's account and discharging them from their trust is conclusive against all interested parties, thereby barring a subsequent action for damages based on the administrator's alleged prior neglect.

Issues

Whether a probate court's order settling an administrator's account and discharging them from their trust is conclusive against subsequent claims of negligence.
Whether an administrator can be held liable for alleged neglect in failing to recover estate property after their account has been settled and they have been discharged by the probate court.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the order allowing the account, and the order accepting the resignation and discharging Brumagim as administrator, released him from all liability.”

“the decree of that Court, settling the accounts and fixing the amount of liability, is conclusive.”

“we are of opinion that Brumagim and all persons (not under disability) interested in the estate, had their day in court when the account was rendered and came on for settlement, and that the settlement thereof is conclusive”

Synopsis

Estates of Deceased Persons—Administrator—Settlement of Account. Under our system, the Probate Court has jurisdiction to settle the accounts of an administrator, and to ascertain and determine Ms liability to the estate; and the decree of that Court, settling the accounts and fixing the amount of liability, is conclusive. Accordingly, where the final account of an administrator, upon Ms resignation, was settled and approved, and he was discharged; and afterward an action was brought against him by his successor, for neglect in failing to bring suit, within the period prescribed by the Statute of Limitations, for land in the possession of adverse claimants, whereby the land was lost: Held, that if the defendant had incurred any liability, it was full and complete at the time of the settlement of his final account, and might then have been ascertained and determined; and that the order settling Ms account and discharging him was conclusive against his liability.

Findings—Nonsuit.—Where the plaintiff is nonsuited, findings are not necessary; and in no event will a judgment be reversed for want of findings, unless it appears from the transcript that findings have not been waived.

Department No. 2, Myrick, J.: T. B. McManus died intestate, January 15th, 1861. On the 8th of August, 1864, defendant Brumagim was appointed administrator of the estate of the deceased, and received letters. August 26th, 1866, Brumagim returned and' filed an inventory and appraisement of the estate of intestate, which set out a tract of land by metes and bounds, valued at $1,000, and, referring to the tract, contained the following words : “ The above land is held by parties in possession, claiming to hold the same adversely to the estate.”

May 1st, 1867, Isabella McManus, sister and heir of deceased, filed in the Probate Court her petition, stating the issuance of letters to Brumagim; that she had come to this State for the purpose of administering upon the estate, and to have it distributed to her as sole heir-at-law; that the property of the estate had been appraised at $1,000; that Brumagim had expressed his desire to resign his trust in order that letters might be issued to her, and had annexed thereto his resignation, and praying that letters be issued to her in the place of said Brumagim, at the same time Brumagim’s resignation was filed. On the same day Brumagim filed his account, which contained the item: “ To real estate, amount as per inventory and appraisal on file, $1,000.” Afterward, on May 6th, 1867, after due notice, the Court found that no objection was made to the account, and that the administrator had accounted for all the estate that had come into his possession, and allowed, approved, and settled the account, showing a balance due Brumagim of $218.05. On the same day the Court made an order, finding that the administrator had duly settled his accounts and delivered up the property of the estate to Isabella McManus, and accepting his resignation, and thereupon decreed him “ released and discharged from his said trust, and his letters of administration are hereby vacated.”

June 6th, 1867, Isabella McManus received general letters ; [256]and August 13th, 1867, as administratrix, commenced an action in ejectment to recover possession of the real estate referred to in the inventory. The defendants in that action, among other defenses, pleaded the Statute of Limitations. The verdict was for the defendants.

Thereupon, April 30th, 1870, the said Isabella McManus, as administratrix, commenced this action against Brumagim, alleging neglect on his part to institute proceedings to recover said real estate, and that by reason of such neglect the property had become lost to the estate, and laid the damages at $125,000. Upon the trial of the case, at the conclusion of plaintiff’s evidence, defendant moved for a nonsuit, on the grounds :

Reynolds v. Brumagim

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief