Ex parte Cohn

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1880 No. No. 10,518Published

Before: Morrison

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a probate court has the jurisdiction to enforce a decree of distribution through contempt proceedings and that a habeas corpus inquiry is limited to determining the jurisdiction of the court and the facial validity of the process.

Issues

Whether a probate court has the authority to enforce a decree of distribution via contempt proceedings.
Whether a petitioner's claim of inability to comply with a court order can be reviewed on habeas corpus when the trial court has already made a factual finding to the contrary.

Disposition. remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It clearly appears that the Superior Court had jurisdiction, and that the proceedings are regular and valid upon their face.”

Synopsis

Contempt—Enforcement of Decree of Distribution—Estates of Deceased Persons.—Disobedience of a decree of distribution by an executor or administrator is a contempt of court, and the decree may be enforced by proceedings under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure relative to contempt.

Id,— Habeas Corpus—Jurisdiction.—The functions of the writ of habeas corpus, when a party who has appealed to its aid, is in custody under process, do not extend beyond an inquiry into the jurisdiction of the Court by which it was issued, and the validity of the process upon the face.

Id.—Id.—Id.—Enforcement of Decree of Distribution—Estate of Deceased Person.—Held accordingly, upon an application for discharge upon a writ of habeas corpus by an executor who was in custody under an order of the Superior Court, adjudging him guilty of contempt in refusing to pay over money under a decree of distribution, that the Court had jurisdiction, and, the proceedings being regular and valid on their face, that the prisoner was not entitled to-a discharge.

Morrison, C. J.: The petitioner complains that he is unlawfully imprisoned, confined, and restrained of his liberty, by one Thomas Desmond, Sheriff of the City and County of San Francisco ; and the Sheriff, in his return to the writ of habeas corpus directed to him, shows that he holds the petitioner under commitment issued out of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, iñ a proceeding for contempt pending in that Court.

Tiie facts established on the hearing are, that Isador Cohn, as executor 'of the estate of one Solomon Cohn, filed his account in the late Probate Court of the City and County of San Francisco, on the 1st day of December, 1879, from which it appears [194]that there was then due from him to the estate the sum of §5,941. This amount had been received by him in money, and should have been in his hands at the time the foregoing account was rendered.

On the 13th of March, 1880, a petition was duly filed in the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, (which Superior Court has succeeded to the powers and jurisdiction of the late Probate Court) for a partial distribution of the estate of Solomon Cohn, in which petition it was set forth and shown that Isador Cohn had then in his hands, as executor, more than $5,000 in money belonging to the estate of Solomon Cohn. And on the filing of such petition for partial distribution, an order to show cause was duly issued by the Superior Court, returnable on Monday, the 26th day of April, 1880. On the next day, (April 27th) Isador Cohn was cited to show cause why an order of partial distribution should not be made in accordance with the prayer of the petition. On the 26th day of April, (the day named in the citation) the hearing of the petition came up regularly before the Superior Court, and an order was thereupon entered, directing Isador Cohn to pay over certain sums of money in the order mentioned, amounting in the aggregate to the sum of §5,000. This order recites, “ That more than the sum of §6,000 is now in the hands of said executor, Tsador Cohn, the sole executor of the estate of Solomon Cohn, deceased, property of said estate, and that there are no debts.”

The petitioner, Isador Cohn, was served with a copy of the above order or decree of the Superior Court, on the 29th day of April, and a demand was made upon him to pay over the moneys held by him as executor, in accordance with the terms of the decree.

Isador Cohn neglected and refused to pay over such moneys, and an affidavit to that effect was presented to the Superior Court of San Francisco on the 29th day of April, whereupon an order of attachment for contempt was duly issued against him. In pursuance of this order, a writ of attachment was issued, and Isador Cohn was thereupon brought before the Superior Court, to show cause, if any he had, why he should not he punished for contempt in failing to obey the order and decree of partial distribution; and afterward such proceedings were

Ex parte Cohn

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief