Parker v. Bernal (1884) · DecisionDepot

Parker v. Bernal

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

California Supreme Court Nov 20, 1884 No. No. 8,444Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an action to enforce a street assessment lien may be properly maintained against the executrixes of a deceased owner's estate, and that dismissing the heirs from the suit does not constitute reversible error.

Issues

Whether an action for a street assessment lien may be maintained against the executrixes of a deceased owner's estate under the Act of April 1st, 1872.
Whether the dismissal of the heirs as defendants while maintaining the action against the executrixes constitutes error.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It was, therefore, competent that the action should have been brought against the executrixes (equivalent for this purpose to administrator), even though the heirs of a deceased person be in fact the owners.”

“There was no error in dismissing as to the heirs, and rendering judgment as to the executrixes.”

Synopsis

Parties—Street Assessment—Executor—Heirs.—An action on a street assessment may be maintained against the executor of an estate, although the heirs of the decedent are in fact the owners of the land assessed. The heirs are not necessary parties, and if originally joined as defendants, the actionmay be dismissed as to them, and judgment rendered against the executor.

The Court. — Street assessment suit. The action was brought against several persons, heirs of one Jose Jesus Bernal, deceased, and two persons, executrixes of the will of deceased. The executrixes alone answered. After trial, the court found that at the time of the assessment the said defendants were the owners of the premises on which the lien is claimed to exist. Some two years after, in rendering judgment, the action was dismissed as to all the defendants, except the executrixes, and thereupon judgment was rendered for plaintiff. We see no error in this, affecting any substantial right of the defendants. According to section 17 of the Act of April 1st, 1872 (Stat. 1871—2, p. 818), the person owning the fee, or in the possession of the premises, or exercising acts of ownership for himself, or as administrator or guardian, or the person in whom the legal title appears by recorded deeds to be, shall be deemed the owner, for the purposes of the act. It was, therefore, competent that the action should have been brought against the executrixes (equivalent for this purpose to administrator), even though the heirs of a deceased person be in fact the owners. That being the case, there was no error in dismissing as to the heirs, and rendering judgment as to the executrixes.

We cannot say that the description given does not give the boundaries of any land.

The other questions presented have been passed on by this court.

Judgment affirmed.

Parker v. Bernal

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief