TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Ong v. Whipple

HAPPY H. ONG v. A. J. WHIPPLE, of the Last Will of John C. Hildreth

Ong v. Whipple, 3 P. 898 (Wash. Terr. 1882)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Washington Territory · State Specialty Courts
Decided
July 20, 1882
Judges
Wingard
Citations
3 P. 8983 Wash. Terr. 233
Headnotes
1. District Court — Jurisdiction—Foreign Guardian — Equity—Accounting. — An action may be brought in the District Court to compel an accounting, by a ward against the executor of a foreign guardian who has died. 2. Executor — Claim — Presentation of. — To authorize a suit by a ward against the guardian of bis executor for an accounting, it is not necessary to first present his claim for allowance to the executor. Note. — The publication of this case was inadvertently omitted from the 2d volume of Washington Reports. —Rep.
Summary
Appeal from the District Court holding terms at New Tacoma. Third District. John O. Hildreth was appointed guardian of the person and estate of the appellant by a court of competent juristion of the State of Indiana, both guardian and ward then being residents of that state. Afterwards Hildreth, the guardian, before his discharge and before he accounted to his ward, removed to this territory, where he died; and the appellee, who was also his partner, was duly appointed as executor of his last will by the Probate Court of Pierce County. Appellant then sued the executor of Hildreth to compel an accounting of his trust as guardian, and also for an accounting of the partnership affairs between the deceased and his executor. The executor appeared and demurred upon the following grounds: 1. Because the courts of Indiana had exclusive jurisdiction; 2. Because the complaint failed to show the presentation of the claim to the executor before suit; 3. Because the complaint failed to show that the executor qualified or accepted his trust under the will; 4. Because it appeared upon the face of the complaint thatthe action was barred by the statute of limitations. The second, third, and fourth grounds are mentioned in the opinion of the court as the objections urged against the sufficiency of the complaint. Demurrer was sustained, and judgment for costs rendered against the plaintiff, from which he-appealed.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Wingard

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Mr. Justice Wingard

delivered the opinion of the court.

In this ease we are of the opinion that the guardian of the plaintiff being dead, he would be without any adequate remedy unless he can maintain his suit against the executor. (Pedeman, Adm’r of Robb, 8 Ohio, 227.) The judgment of the District Court in sustaining the demurrer to plaintiff’s complaint is therefore reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings. We do not consider the complaint exposed to the second, third, and fourth objections urged by the appellee.

Greene, C. J., and Hoyt, J., concurred.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1919: 11969: 119192026peak 1919 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Wilcox v. Mathews456 P.2d 96 (Wash. 1969)
  2. Loucks v. Morley179 P. 529 (Cal. Ct. App. 1919)

Most recent

  1. Wilcox v. Mathews456 P.2d 96 (Wash. 1969)
  2. Loucks v. Morley179 P. 529 (Cal. Ct. App. 1919)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list