More v. Miller
Synopsis
Estates of Deceased Persons—Judqment upon Claim of Administrator.— A judgment in favor of an administrator upon a claim presented by him and rejected by the judge, recovered in an action pursuant to section 1510 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has no greater force and effect than a judgment upon any other rejected claim. It merely establishes the claim in the same manner and to the same extent as if it had been allowed.
Id.—Contest of Judgment—Prima Facie Evidence—Burden of Proof.— A judgment upon a rejected claim is subject to be afterward contested by any person interested in the estate, as if it were an allowed claim. Upon a contest thereof, the judgment is admissible as prima facie evidence of the correctness of the claim; and the burden is on the party contesting to show the claim was not properly allowed.
Id.—Contest of Administrator’s Account—Exceptions—Duty of Court.— In contesting an administrator’s account, the contestant must file his exceptions thereto in writing, stating specifically the grounds of his objections, and at the hearing should be held limited to the exceptions so presented; but, whether exceptions are filed or not, the court should carefully examine the account, and reject all claims of the executor or administrator which are illegal or unjust, and should be satisfied of the correctness of the account before ordering it settled.
Id.—Payment of Judgment—Specifications of Fraud—Evidence,—Upon the contest of an item in an administrator’s account showing the payment by the administrator of a judgment in his own favor - against the estate, as to which specific charges were made of collusion, fraud, and conspiracy in the obtaining of the judgment, the contestants are entitled to demand that the judge shall consider all proper evidence bearing upon the question of the disputed claim upon which the judgment was rendered; and the previous depositions and testimony of witnesses taken in the action and in other actions against the estate, which are relevant and material to the questions put in issue by the contestant, and which tend to show that one of the items of the account upon which .the judgment was rendered had not been presented for allowance, and that the account should be largely reduced, are admissible in evidence, and it is -error, to exclude them. ‘
THE COURT. This is an appeal from so much of an order of the superior court of the city and county of San Francisco, dated June 1, 1896, as settled and allowed as correct an item of the administrator’s second annual account setting forth the pajunent by the administrator, John F. More, to himself as an individual, of the sum of twenty-eight thousand four hundred and fourteen dollars and seventy-two cents. That item, represented by voucher Ho. 13, was the amount, with interest and costs, of a judgment of the superior court of the city and county of San Francisco rendered in an action entitled John F. More, Plaintiff, v. Estate of Alexander P. More, Defendant. The judgment-roll in that case is set out in the transcript here. By that judgment it was decided and adjudged that the said plaintiff have and recover of and from the said defendant estate the sum of twenty-six thousand and twenty-six dollars and thirty-three cents, with interest thereon from the sixth day of March, 1894, together with his costs and disbursements taxed at five hundred and twenty dollars and fifty cents, to be paid in due course of administration.
From the said judgment-roll it appears that John F. More, being the general administrator of the estate of Alexander P. [637].More, and claiming to be a creditor of the estate, presented his claim for allowance to the judge of the court in which the estate was being administered, as required by section 1510 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The judge rejected the claim, and thereupon the claimant brought his action against the said estate to establish his claim. The summons and complaint were served on the judge, who appointed Oliver P. Evans, an attorney of the court, at the expense of the estate, to defend the action. Evans answered the complaint, denying all of its principal averments, and the case was thereafter tried before the court without a jury, and findings of fact and conclusions of law were filed, upon which judgment was entered as above stated.
The amount of this judgment, with interest, having been paid by the administrator to himself as an individual, and having been included in his second annual account, the appellants here filed exceptions and amended exceptions thereto. In the original exceptions they contest the item, "on the ground that said judgment was procured by collusion between the said J. F. More, administrator, and one P. W. Watson, and that the said J. F. More did not defend said suit in good faith, but exerted himself to obtain said judgment against these contestants and the other heirs, contrary to his duty as administrator.” And in the amendment to the exceptions they repeat the same objection, making the charges of fraud and conspiracy more specific.
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)