TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Brown v. Mann

CHARLES BROWN v. T. W. MANN

Brown v. Mann, 9 P. 545 (Cal. 1886)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
February 8, 1886
Docket
No. 9043
Judges
Foote
Citations
9 P. 54568 Cal. 5172 Cal. Unrep. 6271886 Cal. LEXIS 478
Headnotes
Appeal — Notice—Service on Administrator after Conviction por Felony. —The conviction of an administrator of the estate of a deceased person for the crime of embezzlement does not render him civilitcr mor- ' turn, so as to prevent the service of a notice of appeal on him in an action in which he was sued as administrator and judgment rendered in his favor.
Summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Santa Cruz County, and from an order refusing a new trial. Motion to dismiss appeal on the ground that at the time of the service of notice of appeal, one of the respondents, who had been sued as an administrator of the estate of a deceased person, was in prison under a conviction for the crime of embezzlement. The further facts are stated in the opinion.

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

Opinion of the Court — Foote

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

Foote, C.

— The motion to dismiss the appeal herein is not well taken, and should be denied. It is made for *518 the reason, as alleged, that one of the defendants, in whose favor a judgment was rendered in the trial court, was convicted of embezzlement, and while acting as administrator became civiliter mortuus, and that, being sued as such, no service of notice of appeal could be made on him or his attorney. ISTo question of this kind was raised in any of the proceedings- in this cause until judgment was had in favor of the defendant, Otts, administrator, and his co-defendants, and it is now raised for the first time to prevent this appeal from being heard.

We are of opinion that the reasoning of this court in the case of the Estate of Nerac, 35 Cal. 396 , applies here, and said administrator not being sentenced for life as a convict, his responsibilities to those having claims against him did not cease, although certain of his rights were for a time suspended. His letters as administrator were never revoked by the action of the court, to which he was subject as such officer. He litigated with the plaintiff at every stage of the cause, up to and including the rendition of the judgment in his favor, and only raises the point of his disability when an appeal is prayed for aimed at the reversal of that judgment. To allow his contention now to prevail would be manifestly unjust.

Seaels, C., and Beecher, C. C., concurred.

The Court. — For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, the motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.

How later courts describe this case

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

1934: 11942: 119342026peak 1934 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Miller v. Turner253 N.W. 437 (N.D. 1934)
  2. Estate of Dickinson125 P.2d 542 (Cal. Ct. App. 1942)

Most recent

  1. Estate of Dickinson125 P.2d 542 (Cal. Ct. App. 1942)
  2. Miller v. Turner253 N.W. 437 (N.D. 1934)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
In re Estate Nerac, 35 Cal. 392 (1868) 29

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