In re Williams' Estate
Before: Fitzgerald, Haven, McFarland, Temple
Synopsis
Executor’s Sale—Advanced Bid.—An Executor, as Devisee in Trust, acting under the provisions of the will, sold property of the estate, and applied to the probate court for a confirmation. Plaintiff filed an advanced bid with the court, whereupon the executor conveyed the property to the first bidder. The court denied confirmation, and ordered and confirmed a sale to plaintiff, he paying the amount of his bid to the executor. The first bidder appealed from the order of confirmation, which was reversed. Plaintiff then filed a petition to compel the return from the estate to him of the money paid to the executor. Held, that plaintiff held no debt or claim against the estate.
Executors—Allowance of Claim.—An Appeal cannot be Taken to the supreme court from an order dismissing the petition, under Code of Civil Procedure, section 963, subdivision 3, which provides for an appeal from a judgment or order refusing, allowing, or directing the payment of a debt or claim against an estate. In such ease plaintiff’s remedy is in an action against the executor individually.
Opinion — Temple
TEMPLE, C. This appeal is from an order denying and dismissing the petition of appellant for an order that the executor of the estate of Thomas H. Williams restore to him $11,000 purchase money paid for the interest of the testator in certain real estate in pursuance of an order of the court confirming the sale. The executor filed a report of a sale made by him under a power of sale contained in the will. Appellant’s agent and assignor thereupon filed in the probate court [789]an advanced bid. The matter was postponed for some time, but the sale was finally confirmed to appellant’s assignor, who thereupon paid $11,000—the amount of his bid—to the executor, who executed and delivered to him a deed in due form. By the will, the real estate had all been devised to the executor, in trust. After the advanced bid was filed, but before the confirmation of the sale to appellant’s assignor, the executor, in his capacity of trustee, conveyed the property to the first bidder, who, after appellant had paid his money and had received his deed from the executor, appealed from the order of confirmation to this court. This court held (92 Cal. 183, 28 Pac. 227, 679) that under the circumstances the sale was properly made by the devisee in trust, and therefore reversed the order of confirmation. The remittitur having been filed in the court below, this petition was presented.
The respondent now makes the point that the order dismissing the petition is not appealable. I think the point well taken. If an appeal is allowed in such case, it must be on the ground that appellant has a claim or debt against the estate for the amount so paid to the executor, and that the order dismissing his petition is an order refusing to allow, or refusing to direct the payment of, a debt or claim, within the meaning of the third subdivision of section 963 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It may well be doubted whether appellant’s demand is a claim or debt against the estate in any sense. After the order of confirmation was reversed, and the property had been legally sold, and the proceeds accounted for to the estate, it is difficult to see how the executor can be made to account for this amount. But if we examine the section of the code alluded to we shall find that it contains no general language giving this, court jurisdiction of appeals from probate rulings, but the appellate jurisdiction is conferred by specially enumerating certain orders and judgments from which appeals may be taken. All refer to acts which the code expressly authorizes, and very nearly in the order in which such action is likely to be taken in the course of administration. Such an enumeration is necessarily a limitation. The words “claim” and “debt” are used interchangeably in the code, as in section 1497, Code of Civil Procedure, and elaborate provision is made, running through many sections, for their presentation, allowance, rejection, and finally for an
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)