Stuttmeister v. Superior Court (1887) · DecisionDepot

Stuttmeister v. Superior Court

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

California Supreme Court Jun 9, 1887 No. No. 12168Published

Before: Searls

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an order directing an administrator to pay a claim against an estate is appealable, and once an appeal is perfected with a supersedeas bond, the lower court lacks jurisdiction to hold the administrator in contempt for failing to comply with that order.

Issues

Whether an order directing an administrator to pay a claim against an estate is appealable under section 963 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Whether the lower court exceeded its jurisdiction by adjudging an administrator in contempt for failing to pay a claim while an appeal of the payment order was pending.

Disposition. proceedings quashed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“When thus treated, an order for its payment was appealable under section 963, supra.”

“It follows that the action of the court below in adjudging the administrator guilty of contempt after the appeal was perfected, and a bond for the stay of proceedings filed, was in excess of jurisdiction”

Synopsis

Application for a writ of review. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Searls, C. J. This cause comes up on a writ of review issued to the Superior Court in and for the city and county of San Francisco (department 9).

[488]From the record presented, it appears that in 1884 John A. Collins presented a claim for services as attorney against the estate of F. W. R. Stuttmeister, deceased, to W. 0. Stuttmeister, the administrator of such estate, and such proceedings were afterward' had therein that on or about October 10, 1884, such claim was allowed and approved by the Probate Court for three hundred dollars, and ordered to be paid out of the estate in due course of administration.

On the seventeenth day of May, 1887, the said Superior Court in probate made an order upon the administrator, requiring him to forthwith pay to said John A. Collins said sum of three hundred dollars, so allowed as aforesaid.

That thereafter and on the eighteenth day of May, 1887, W. 0. Stuttmeister, administrator as aforesaid, took and perfected an appeal to this court from said order of May 17, 1887, requiring him as such administrator to pay said sum of three hundred dollars, as aforesaid.

A supersedeas bond was filed, and the appeal is in all respects regular in form.

Subsequent thereto the court below proceeded to adjudge said administrator guilty of contempt for failing to pay over said sum of money, in accordance with such order of May 17, 1887, and adjudged him guilty of such contempt, and fined him in the sum of two hundred dollars, and in default of payment thereof committed him to the custody of the sheriff, etc., whereupon said administrator sues out this writ of review.

If the order for the payment of the three hundred dollars was appealable, then the proceedings thereon having been stayed by an appeal and supersedeas bond, as provided by the Code of Civil Procedure, the Superior Court was divested of jurisdiction to act further in the matter pending such appeal.

By section 963, Code of Civil Procedure, an appeal to the Supreme Court is given from certain orders of the [489]

Stuttmeister v. Superior Court

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief