Home/California Supreme Court/Chiapella v. County Nat. Bank Etc. Co.

Chiapella v. County Nat. Bank Etc. Co.

19 P.2d 983, 217 Cal. 503, 1933 Cal. LEXIS 639
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 7, 1933
DocketDocket No. L.A. 13891.
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 19 P.2d 983 (Chiapella v. County Nat. Bank Etc. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

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

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

Related

Metzger v. Silverman
62 Cal. App. 3d 30 (California Court of Appeal, 1976)
Metzger v. Silverman
62 Cal. App. Supp. 3d 30 (Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California, 1976)
Palmer v. Gregg
422 P.2d 985 (California Supreme Court, 1967)
Vickerson v. Wehr
109 P.2d 743 (California Court of Appeal, 1941)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
19 P.2d 983, 217 Cal. 503, 1933 Cal. LEXIS 639, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chiapella-v-county-nat-bank-etc-co-cal-1933.