Chiapella v. County Nat. Bank Etc. Co.

California Supreme Court

Chiapella v. County Nat. Bank Etc. Co.

19 P.2d 983, 217 Cal. 503, 1933 Cal. LEXIS 639

California Supreme Court·Decided March 7, 1933·No. Docket No. L.A. 13891.·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

THE COURT.

The lower court dismissed this cause for want of jurisdiction.

[1] A suit upon a rejected claim is not an exercise of probate jurisdiction. The action is upon the contract and venue is determined as in other civil cases. (McLean v. Crow,88 Cal. 644, 647 [26 P. 596]; Gallagher v. McGraw, 132 Cal. 601 [26 P. 596].) Such a suit is also recognized as a transitory action. It follows the person of the defendant and may be tried in a county other than that wherein the estate is being probated. (Thompson v. Wood, 115 Cal. 301 [64 P. 1080].)

The order is affirmed.

*Page 504

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

THE COURT.

The lower court dismissed this cause for want of jurisdiction.

[1] A suit upon a rejected claim is not an exercise of probate jurisdiction. The action is upon the contract and venue is determined as in other civil cases. (McLean v. Crow,88 Cal. 644, 647 [26 P. 596]; Gallagher v. McGraw, 132 Cal. 601 [26 P. 596].) Such a suit is also recognized as a transitory action. It follows the person of the defendant and may be tried in a county other than that wherein the estate is being probated. (Thompson v. Wood, 115 Cal. 301 [64 P. 1080].)

The order is affirmed.

*Page 504

Chiapella v. County Nat. Bank Etc. Co., 19 P.2d 983, 217 Cal. 503, 1933 Cal. LEXIS 639 (Cal. 1933).

Pincite

19 P.2d 983 (Chiapella v. County Nat. Bank Etc. Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related