In re Estate of Griffith
Before: Beatty
Synopsis
Probate Practice — Petition for Revocation of Letters of Administration— Presumption as to Existence of Jurisdictional Facts — Notice—• Residence.—If a petition for the revocation of letters of administration does not show that the jurisdictional facts did not exist, it will be presumed for the purposes of the application that they did exist. So held as to the facts of notice and residence.
Id. — Order Appointing Administrator — Adjudication of Jurisdictional Facts. — An order appointing an administrator, made upon a petition setting forth the jurisdictional facts, amounts to an adjudication of the existence of such facts.
Id.—Notice of Application for Letters of Administration — Instance. — No other notice of an application for letters of administration than that prescribed by statute is required. Where the public administrator of one county applies for letters, it is not necessary to send notices to the public administrator of any other county.
Id. — Jurisdictional Facts —Residence—Collateral Attack. —The residence of the deceased in the county where the application is made is one of the jurisdictional facts which the court must determine from the evidence before it. Such determination, although it may be erroneous, is valid until set aside in some appropriate proceeding. It cannot be attacked collaterally.
Public Administrator — Application for Revocation of Letters — Who may Make. — Section 1383 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not authorize an application by the public administrator of one county for the revocation of letters issued to the public administrator of another county.
Relief against Default — Application under Section 473—Separate Suit for Relief. —■ An application under section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure must be by proceeding in the cause wherein the default was taken, and not by separate suit for relief against the judgment..
Relief in Equity against a Judgment — Errors in Law or Fact — Fraud — Failure of Party to Introduce Evidence Known by
Him to Exist. — A separate suit to set aside a judgment cannot be maintained on account of mere errors of law or fact in the first suit. Nor can it be maintained on account of fraud in a matter examined in the first suit, and upon which the judgment therein was based. The frauds for which equity grants relief against judgments are those which are extrinsic, or collateral to the matter tried in the first suit. The mere failure of a party to introduce evidence known by him to exist does not amount to such fraud.
Opinion
The Court. Upon the argument of this case in Bank we are satisfied with the decision heretofore rendered in Department as correct, and the same will stand as the decision of the court.
Order affirmed.
So ordered.
Dissent — Beatty
Beatty, C. J., dissented. The following is the decision above referred to, rendered in Department on the 31st of March, 1890: —
Iíayne, C.—This was an application by James Stanley, public administrator of Alameda County, to the Superior Court of San Joaquin County, for the revocation of the appointment of John Gambetta, the public administrator of San Joaquin County, as administrator of the estate of Richard Griffith, deceased. The amended petition showed substantially the following facts: —
Richard Griffith died intestate in San Joaquin County, leaving estate therein and also in Alameda County, and being at the time of his death a resident of Alameda [109]County. The petition of Gambetta for administration was filed i-n the Superior Court of San Joaquin County on June 24,1889. Two days afterward, Stanley filed his petition for administration in the Superior Court of Alameda County, The petition first filed came on to be heard first, and on July 6th the San Joaquin court appointed Gambetta administrator of the estate, and issued letters to him. Two days afterward, the Alameda court appointed Stanley administrator, and issued letters to him. The two courts apparently were in ignorance of each other’s proceedings; and Stanley “did not know or receive any notice or have any knowledge of the said petition of John Gambetta, or of the hearing of the same, and only first heard of the same on the ninth day of July, 1889.” The petition for revocation also alleges certain facts for the purpose of showing fraud on the part of Gambetta, which will be considered below.
Gambetta filed a demurrer to the petition for revocation and also certain affidavits. The court sustained the demurrer, and afterward made an order denying the petition, and Stanley appeals.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)