TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Willson v. Hernandez

DANIEL WILLSON and others v. E. HERNANDEZ

Willson v. Hernandez, 5 Cal. 437 (1855)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 1, 1855
Judges
Heydenfeldt
Citations
5 Cal. 437
Syllabus
An administrator having resigned, on settlement, the Judge of the Probate Court found him indebted to the estate in the sum óf sixteen thousand dollars, and ordered him to pay it into Court, and upon his refusal to do so, the heirs brought an action on his administration bond. Held, that there was no law making the Judge of Probate a fiscal agent, and the decree for the payment of the money into Court was coram non judice. The refusal of the administrator to pay the money into Court was no breach of the conditions of the bond.
Summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, San Joaquin County. The opinion of the Court contains the facts.

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

Opinion of the Court — Heydenfeldt

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

Heydenfeldt, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

Murray, C. J., concurred.

The administrator of an estate having resigned, appeared in the Probate Court to have a final settlement of the accounts. After the hearing, the Judge found him indebted to the estate in the sum of sixteen thousand dollars, and ordered him to pay it into Court. Upon his refusal to do so, this action was brought on the administration bond by the heirs.

Upon the resignation of the administrator, it was first the duty of the Court to appoint another, who alone would be competent to receive the estate from the retiring administrator, and complete its administration. Or if the estate was in a condition for distribution, then to decree severally in favor of the distributees against the administrator; for either he must pay the moneys of the estate to an administrator, who is the only proper custodian, or to the distributees to whom it belongs.

There is no rule to be derived, either from the ecclesiastical law or our statute of estates, which makes the Judge of Probate a fiscal agent, either to keep or disburse the money of an estate.

It follows, that the refusal of the administrator to pay the money into Court was no breach of the conditions of the bond. That portion of the decree which requires it, is coram non judice.

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1922: 119222026peak 1922 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Mounsey v. Bower136 N.E. 41 (Ind. Ct. App. 1922)

Most recent

  1. Mounsey v. Bower136 N.E. 41 (Ind. Ct. App. 1922)

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