Wetzler

Wetzler v. Fitch

Good Law
52 Cal. 638
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 1, 1878No. 5579California1,260 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

I. The Probate Court not being an inferior tribunal, the District Judge has no jurisdiction in the premises.. (Code Civil Procedure, secs. 98 and 1035 : Pond v. Pond, 10 Cal. 495 .)

II. “ Mandamus lies to compel an inferior tribunal to perform a duty enjoined by law, if it refuses to do so.” (Lewis v. Barclay, 35 Cal. 213 .) There is no law requiring the Probate Judge to set for hearing the account of a deceased executor. This point was settled in the case of Bush v. Lindsay, 44 Cal. 124 .

HI. K Julius Wetzler had a claim against Eosanna Keenan’s estate he should have presented it to the administrator of that estate. If it had been rejected by him, he had a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by suit in the proper Court. (Secs. 1493 to 1501, Code Civil Procedure.)

IV. The presentation of the account to the Probate Court, by Julius Wetzler, was an act of administration on the estate of Eosanna Keenan, deceased. If he can do one act of administration on that estate, as the executor of John C. Keenan, deceased, he can do all. “ No executor of an executor shall be authorized, as such, to administer on the estate of the first testator.” “ No person has any power as an executor until…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.