Washington v. Black (1890) · DecisionDepot

Washington v. Black

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

California Supreme Court Mar 1, 1890 No. No. 13479Published

Before: Thornton

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an action to recover rents and profits received by an executrix during the administration of an estate must be brought within the jurisdiction of the probate court, as such funds are considered assets of the estate and subject to the court's settlement of accounts.

Issues

Whether rents and profits of real estate received by an executrix are considered assets of the estate.
Whether a devisee may maintain a civil action against an executrix for rents and profits prior to the settlement of the estate in probate court.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“In a case like the one before us the matters in controversy are under the sole jurisdiction of the probate court. The remedy must be sought there.”

“The whole estate, real and personal, under our system, is assets, and may be, if required, applied to the payment of the debts of the estate.”

Synopsis

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Yolo County, and from an order denying a new trial.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Thornton, J. James Moore died in 1884, leaving a will, which was afterward duly admitted to probate in Yolo County. He died possessed of a large estate. By [291]his will he bequeathed, among other things, a handsome estate to his wife, the defendant, Mary A. Black, who since his death has married her co-defendant, James R. Black. He also bequeathed to her all of his personal property, in trust, to pay his debts, funeral expenses, and costs of administration, and the remainder of this personal property to her.

He devised to his daughter, Martha Washington, in fee, the south half of section 11, township 9 north, range 1 west, Mount Diablo meridian, saving and excepting about ten acres, etc.

The defendant Mary A. was appointed, qualified, and acted as executrix, and administered the estate under the will. The personal property demised to her in trust was more than sufficient to pay the testator’s debts, funeral expenses, and the expenses of administration.-

While the defendant Mary was executrix she received in the year 1885, as rents, issues, and profits of the land devised as above mentioned to the plaintiff, the following sums: $2,652.82 on the fourteenth day of August, 1885, from the sale of wheat received by her as rent of said land; also, about the same time, the further sum of $91.81 from the sale of other wheat received by her as such rent; also, the further sum of $100 received for pasturage of said land; also, the further sum of $676.50 received by her as proceeds of the sale of certain summer-fallow on said land, — all received prior to the fifteenth day of November, 1885, and making a total thus received of $8,521.12.

The defendant Mary rendered a final account of her administration to the proper superior court, which was settled and approved. The court further finds that on or about the-day of April, 1888, the defendant was discharged as executrix.

The court further finds that the land devised to plaintiff was by the proper court ordered to be delivered to her upon her giving security as provided by article 1 of [292]chapter 2 of title 2 of part 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Related research

The land out of which these rents and profits issued was ordered to be distributed to plaintiff prior to the receipt of some of them by the defendant, but it was not delivered into her possession until the lGth of November, 1885. To this date the executrix was clearly entitled to receive these rents, by virtue of the provisions of section 1452 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By this section she is entitled to receive the rents and profits of the real estate until the estate is settled, or until delivered by order of the court to the heirs or devisees. It is true that the devisee of this land, the plaintiff, takes title from the death of the testator, and lias a right to the rents and profits arising from it from the same date; but this right is subject to the right of the executrix to the possession of the land, and to receix'e the rents and profits arising therefrom, until the happening of the events above designated. Conceding that the plaintiff might have maintained an action to recover the rents, etc., on a promise to pay such to her by the executrix, xve find no evidence of such promise here, and no such promise is found. As the facts appear, xve see no ground for holding that the plaintiff could maintain an1 action on this case prior to the regular distribution by the proper court. It is argued that the executrix is es-topped to say that they are rents of the estate of Moore by her conduct in withholding them from her account and report to the probate court in never treating them as such. But we cannot see that this plaintiff was mis[294]led in any way by this conduct, and therefore it cannot be held that there is any such thing as an estoppel. How the failure on the part of the executrix to do her duty in relation to those rents and profits in making return of them to the probate court, and accounting for them, can work an estoppel, we cannot see. We are bound to hold that the plaintiff was cognizant of her rights, and that she could have compelled an account of them to her by the executrix in due course of procedure in the probate court. She was notified regularly of the settlement of the accounts of the executrix, and made no attempt to charge the executrix with this money on the settlement. She might have examined the executrix before that court, and obtained a disclosure of the receipt of those rents.

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief