Falkner v. Hendy

California Supreme Court Apr 4, 1895 No. No. 15644Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A judgment against a decedent's estate is reversible when the plaintiff fails to prove that the claim was presented to the executor or administrator as required by statute, provided the objection was timely raised in the trial court.

Issues

Whether a judgment against a decedent's estate is valid without proof that the claim was presented to the estate's representatives.
Whether the failure to present a claim to the estate's representatives constitutes grounds for reversal when the objection is raised during trial.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Section 1502 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that, if an action is pending against a decedent at the time of his death, it must be presented to the executor or administrator as in other cases; “ and no recovery shall be had in the action”

“The effect of these cases is that proof of the presentation of the claim is not a fact essential to the validity of the judgment—where no issue has been made upon that question—but that the failure to make the proof is ground for reversal”

“he was not entitled to recover a judgment which will bind the estate of Hendy until such presentation had been made.”

Synopsis

Partnership—Action for Accounting — Use of Trust Funds by Db-ceased Copartner—Presentation of Claim.—In an action for an accounting of a partnership, where the plaintiff claimed that the defendant had realized a large amount of money from the use of trust funds which the plaintiff was entitled to recover, and in which he seeks to obtain a large money judgment against the defendant, as his copartner, and against a corporation organized by him to carry on his business, upon the death of the copartner defendant, during the pendency of the action, it is necessary that the claim should be presented to the executors of his estate, and, if objection is made t% proceeding with the trial upon the ground that the claim was not presented for allowance, a judgment in favor of the plaintiff will be reversed upon appeal.

Id.—Exception to Judgment—Nonpresentation of Claim — Review upon Appeal.—An exception to the entry of judgment against the executors and executrix of a deceased defendant, on the ground that no claim had been presented to them, and that the decision was against law, in giving judgment against them without proof of the presentation of the claim, is not, in effect, an objection to the decision on the ground that it was not sustained by the evidence; and such exception may be reviewed upon appeal, although the appeal was not taken within sixty days after the rendition of the judgment.

Id.—Duty to Present Claim—Knowledge of Death of Adversary.— Litigants must know at their peril of the death of an adversary, and a plaintiff seeking a judgment against the defendant is not entitled to recover a judgment which will bind his estate, unless within the period allowed by law for the presentation of claims a presentation has been made to the representative of the decedent.

Appeal—Reversal of Judgment—New Trial.—An unqualified reversal of a judgment by the supreme court has the effect to remand the cause for a new trial.

The COURT. This appeal is from the judgment, with a bill of exceptions.

The action was brought to obtain a dissolution of an alleged partnership, to have an account taken and for other relief. It was commenced March 11, 1876. At the first trial plaintiff recovered judgment, and defendants appealed, and that appeal was disposed of here October, 1889. (Falkner v. Hendy, 80 Cal. 636.) The facts of the case appear in the opinion then rendered.

It was found that the partnership—if the relations between the parties could be so called—had. ended before the suit was brought, leaving in Hendy’s hands property in which Steen had a contingent interest, and which Hendy continued to sell from time to time after this suit was begun. By stipulation, however, it was found that Hendy had in his hands something more than ten thousand dollars which belonged to Steen. The question left to be determined was what interest or what share of the profits of Hendy’s business Steen was entitled to. After the remittitur was filed from this court Steen amended his complaint, made for the first time the corporation a defendant, and claimed that Hendy had actually realized a large amount of money from the use of the trust funds which he, Steen, was entitled to recover.

The corporation was created September 29, 1882, and it was made a party to the suit November 26,1889. The supplemental and amended complaint, by which the corporation was brought in, charged, in effect, that Hendy owned all the stock of the corporation, and that [51]it was organized to carry on Hendy’s business, to hide plaintiff’s property, and to defraud plaintiff. A money judgment was demanded against both defendants.

Soon after, Hendy paid the amount found due, exclusive of interest, and the cause was referred to a referee to try, with directions to report findings and a judgment. While the trial was in progress, October 21,1891, Hendy died. The record does not show when letters of administration were issued in the estate of Hendy, but it appears by order made August 10, 1892, that the death of Hendy was suggested by plaintiff, and it was ordered that the case be continued in the names of the executors; and the bill of exceptions recites that: “At the first session after his death, and said substitution, to wit, on the nineteenth day of November, 1891, said defendants objected to further proceeding with the trial, or the taking of any further testimony in the case, upon the ground that the claim upon which the action is based has not beeh presented for allowance to the executors and executrix of Joshua Hendy, deceased; but the referee, notwithstanding such objection, proceeded with said trial and the taking of testimony in the case, to all of which the defendants duly excepted, and the said trial and taking of testimony was then proceeded with by said referee; the trial was concluded, and the case argued and submitted to the referee for decision in February, 1892, and the said referee rendered his decision and filed his findings of fact and conclusions of law on the fifth day of November, 1892, with the clerk of the court, and judgment and decree were made thereon on December 30, 1892.

Falkner v. Hendy

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief