Hunt v. Maldonado

California Supreme Court

Hunt v. Maldonado

27 P. 56, 89 Cal. 636, 1891 Cal. LEXIS 870

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJune 27, 1891

DocketNo. 14350

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 27 P. 56 (Hunt v. Maldonado) 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

Hunt v. Maldonado, 27 P. 56, 89 Cal. 636, 1891 Cal. LEXIS 870 (Cal. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Temple, C.

— Appeal on judgment roll from judgment on demurrer.

The demurrer was properly sustained. The action is to recover an attorney’s fee for services rendered to the guardian of a minor in pursuance of a written contract. The action is against the minor. If the guardian made a valid contract with the attorney, he may be held liable, and if he pays it, and the probate court shall deem the expenditure reasonable, and necessary to protect the interests of the ward, it may be allowed from the ward’s-estate. But it is an expense incurred by the guardian in the performance of his duties, for which he is primarily liable. If an attorney’s fee could ever be in the nature of a necessary for which the ward could contract, the complaint shows that the service here was not of that character.

We notice that the transcript ■ fails to show that the ward appeared by guardian, as required by section 372 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The judgment should be affirmed.

Belcher, 0., and Vancliep, C., concurred.

The Court.—For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, the judgment is affirmed.

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

Temple, C.

— Appeal on judgment roll from judgment on demurrer.

The demurrer was properly sustained. The action is to recover an attorney’s fee for services rendered to the guardian of a minor in pursuance of a written contract. The action is against the minor. If the guardian made a valid contract with the attorney, he may be held liable, and if he pays it, and the probate court shall deem the expenditure reasonable, and necessary to protect the interests of the ward, it may be allowed from the ward’s-estate. But it is an expense incurred by the guardian in the performance of his duties, for which he is primarily liable. If an attorney’s fee could ever be in the nature of a necessary for which the ward could contract, the complaint shows that the service here was not of that character.

We notice that the transcript ■ fails to show that the ward appeared by guardian, as required by section 372 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The judgment should be affirmed.

Belcher, 0., and Vancliep, C., concurred.

The Court.—For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 P. 56, 89 Cal. 636, 1891 Cal. LEXIS 870, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunt-v-maldonado-cal-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack