Sumitomo Bank, Ltd. v. Shuu Miyagishima

CONREY, P. J. Kiehitaro Miyagishima, a resident of the county of Los Angeles but of Japanese nationality, died at Los Angeles, California, on the twenty-second day of January, 1928. Surviving him were his wife Shuu Miyagishima, residing at Los Angeles, and Jiro Miyagishima, his son, residing in Japan. Decedent left no property in the state of California other than the claim or account hereinafter described, and he left no will.

On petition of the widow, filed in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, she was appointed administratrix of the estate. After various proceedings in the course of administration, the administratrix filed her final account and petition for distribution in which she described the property of the estate as follows:

“That the deceased died on January 22, 1928, in the county of Los Angeles, state of California, where he had been a resident and where he engaged in business from 1904 until the date of his death. That prior to his death, while engaged in business in Los Angeles, California, the deceased and the administratrix herein, being husband and wife, by [345]their mutual efforts earned and saved certain monies which the deceased caused to be deposited in the Sumitomo Bank, Ltd., in exchange for which the Los Angeles Branch of said bank issued to, and in the name of, the deceased, its receipts therefor.

11 The first of these deposits was made November 9, 1925 and is evidenced by receipt #2187 of the said Sumitomo Bank, Ltd., in which the said deposit is referred to as 4164.82 yens.

“The second and last of these deposits was made February 21, 1927 and is evidenced by receipt #3336 of the said Sumitomo Bank, Ltd., in which the said deposit is referred to as 2417.10 yens.

“That these deposits as evidenced by the said receipts comprise the entire estate of the deceased herein.”

To said account and petition, appellant Sumitomo Bank, Ltd., Los Angeles branch, filed its written opposition, whereby it objected to the making of any order whatsoever with respect to the distribution or disposition of said estate. When the matter came on for hearing, the court ordered: “ . . . that the said opposition be and it is hereby stricken from the files on the ground that said bank is not a proper party to this probate proceeding and the court has no jurisdiction in this proceeding to enter judgment against said bank on the merits and the court therefore strikes said opposition (so called) and refuses to hear any evidence in support thereof”.