Rogers v. King

22 Cal. 71
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1863
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 22 Cal. 71 (Rogers v. King) 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
Rogers v. King, 22 Cal. 71 (Cal. 1863).

Opinion

Norton, J. delivered the opinion of the Court—Cope, C. J. concurring.

The agreed case states that Cornelius DeBoom (the executor named in the will) filed in the Probate Court a petition for the probate of the will of Romain DeBoom, and filed therein an [73]*73authenticated copy of said will, and that the petition stated all the necessary facts and Avas sworn to, and that due and legal notice was published. It is also shoAvn that a judgment was entered admitting the Avill to probate, and that the will Avas thereupon duly recorded.

If, as is agreed, the petition stated ah the necessary facts, then upon its presentation with a copy of the will, and the publication of due and legal notice, the Court acquired jurisdiction to probate the will, and the judgment of the probate thereafter entered is conclusive. If any irregularities occurred in the proceedings or error in the judgment after jurisdiction was acquired, they could only be corrected by a direct proceeding for that purpose, and cannot be inquired into in this collateral proceeding. (Irwin v. Scriber, 18 Cal. 499; In the Matter of the Estate of Preston Warfield, ante 51.) any error-We do not, however, by this remark, intend to intimate that any error occurred in the probate proceedings.

judgment affirmed. ----* ___A

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

Related

Stevens v. Torregano
192 Cal. App. 2d 105 (California Court of Appeal, 1961)
Giménez v. Brenes
10 P.R. 124 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1906)
Estate of Dunsmuir
2 Coffey 53 (California Superior Court, San Francisco County, 1905)
Board of Railroad Commissioners v. Market Street Railway Co.
64 P. 1065 (California Supreme Court, 1901)
O'Donnell v. Glenn
9 Mont. 452 (Montana Supreme Court, 1890)
Booraem v. North Hudson County Railway Co.
44 N.J. Eq. 70 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1888)
People ex rel. Badger v. Lœwenthal
93 Ill. 191 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1879)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
22 Cal. 71, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rogers-v-king-cal-1863.