Sedgwick v. Sedgwick

California Supreme Court

Sedgwick v. Sedgwick

52 Cal. 336, 1877 Cal. LEXIS 113

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1877

DocketNo. 5437

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 52 Cal. 336 (Sedgwick v. Sedgwick) 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

Sedgwick v. Sedgwick, 52 Cal. 336, 1877 Cal. LEXIS 113 (Cal. 1877).

Pincite

Opinion

By the amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure, made in 1874, the Legislature precluded parties to an action from testifying therein when the action is against an executor or an administrator of a deceased person upon a claim or demand against the estate of such deceased.

The present action on the note is by the executrix, and not against her, and is on a demand in favor of the estate of her testate, and not against said estate.

D. S. Terry and W. L. Dudley, for the Respondent, cited Blood v. Fairbanks, 50 Cal. 420, and Mitchell v. Hagenmeyer, 51 Cal. 108.

By the Coubt :

The third subdivision of section 1880, Code Civil Procedure, as amended in 1874, provides that the following persons cannot be witnesses: “ Parties to an action or proceeding, or in whose behalf an action or proceeding is prosecuted, against an executor or administrator, upon a claim or a demand against the estate of the deceased.” This action is brought by the executrix, and is brought, upon a demand, not against, but in favor of the estate, and therefore does not fall within the above cited provision. The Court erred in excluding the testimony of the defendant.

Judgment and order reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial.

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

By the amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure, made in 1874, the Legislature precluded parties to an action from testifying therein when the action is against an executor or an administrator of a deceased person upon a claim or demand against the estate of such deceased.

The present action on the note is by the executrix, and not against her, and is on a demand in favor of the estate of her testate, and not against said estate.

D. S. Terry and W. L. Dudley, for the Respondent, cited Blood v. Fairbanks, 50 Cal. 420, and Mitchell v. Hagenmeyer, 51 Cal. 108.

By the Coubt :

The third subdivision of section 1880, Code Civil Procedure, as amended in 1874, provides that the following persons cannot be witnesses: “ Parties to an action or proceeding, or in whose behalf an action or proceeding is prosecuted, against an executor or administrator, upon a claim or a demand against the estate of the deceased.” This action is brought by the executrix, and is brought, upon a demand, not against, but in favor of the estate, and therefore does not fall within the above cited provision. The Court erred in excluding the testimony of the defendant.

Judgment and order reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 Cal. 336, 1877 Cal. LEXIS 113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sedgwick-v-sedgwick-cal-1877.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack