De Mattos v. McGovern

California Court of Appeal

De Mattos v. McGovern

77 P.2d 525, 25 Cal. App. 2d 434, 1938 Cal. App. LEXIS 838

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedMarch 21, 1938

DocketCiv. No. 10754

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 77 P.2d 525 (De Mattos v. McGovern) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

De Mattos v. McGovern, 77 P.2d 525, 25 Cal. App. 2d 434, 1938 Cal. App. LEXIS 838 (Cal. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

NOURSE, P. J.

This is a companion case to de Mattos v. McGovern, this day decided (ante, p. 429 [77 Pac. (2d) 522]). To the petition for final distribution de Mattos filed objections and a prayer to the probate court to specifically enforce the oral agreement alleged in the complaint in the former action. He did not file any claim against the estate and made this his first appearance in the probate proceeding long after the time for filing had expired. The appellant concedes that his pleading states no cause other than one for specific performance of the alleged agreement, and states that he knows of no rule of law which would require him to sue for a money judgment in lieu of enforcing his rights under the agreement. In Morrison v. Land, 169 Cal. 580, 586 [147 Pac. 259], it is said: “it is elemen[435]*435tary that where, as here, the primary right of a party is legal in its nature, as distinguished from equitable, and one for which the law affords some remedy, as here damages by way of compensation for breach of contract, a proper exercise of the equitable jurisdiction will not give equitable relief in any ease where the legal remedy is full and adequate and does complete justice”. Since the probate court has no primary jurisdiction in equity it is powerless to grant equitable relief where the party has, through his fault alone, failed to pursue the legal remedy afforded him.

For these reasons, and for the reasons given in the companion ease, the order is affirmed.

Sturtevant, J., and Spence, J., concurred.

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

NOURSE, P. J.

This is a companion case to de Mattos v. McGovern, this day decided (ante, p. 429 [77 Pac. (2d) 522]). To the petition for final distribution de Mattos filed objections and a prayer to the probate court to specifically enforce the oral agreement alleged in the complaint in the former action. He did not file any claim against the estate and made this his first appearance in the probate proceeding long after the time for filing had expired. The appellant concedes that his pleading states no cause other than one for specific performance of the alleged agreement, and states that he knows of no rule of law which would require him to sue for a money judgment in lieu of enforcing his rights under the agreement. In Morrison v. Land, 169 Cal. 580, 586 [147 Pac. 259], it is said: “it is elemen[435]*435tary that where, as here, the primary right of a party is legal in its nature, as distinguished from equitable, and one for which the law affords some remedy, as here damages by way of compensation for breach of contract, a proper exercise of the equitable jurisdiction will not give equitable relief in any ease where the legal remedy is full and adequate and does complete justice”. Since the probate court has no primary jurisdiction in equity it is powerless to grant equitable relief where the party has, through his fault alone, failed to pursue the legal remedy afforded him.

For these reasons, and for the reasons given in the companion ease, the order is affirmed.

Sturtevant, J., and Spence, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 P.2d 525, 25 Cal. App. 2d 434, 1938 Cal. App. LEXIS 838, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-mattos-v-mcgovern-calctapp-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack