Walkerly

Walkerly v. Bacon

Good Law
1890 Cal. LEXIS 885·85 Cal. 137·24 P. 638
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 31, 1890No. 13018California941 words

Opinion

Dissenting Opinion

Paterson, J.

I dissent. An entire demand cannot be thus split up into several causes of action. The claim allowed and filed for five thousand dollars has the force of a judgment (Estate of Glenn, 74 Cal. 567 ), and is a bar to this action for the balance. (Zirker v. Hughes, 77 Cal. 235 ; Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1503.)

Lead Opinion

This is a bill in equity against the executors of the last will and testament of William Walkerly, deceased. Decedent was the sole devisee of Martin Walkerly, deceased, and as such received on distribution the entire estate left by said Martin, amounting to about two hundred thousand dollars. It is alleged, and the court finds, that he accepted and received this estate subject to a parol trust to pay out of said estate to the plaintiff in this cause the sum of ten thousand dollars. William Walkerly died without having executed the trust by paying the said ten thousand dollars, or any part thereof, and his estate passed to his executors, subject to the trust.

*140 In this state of the case, the plaintiff presented a formal claim against the estate for said ten thousand dollars to the executors for allowance. They allowed it for five thousand dollars only, when it was presented to the judge of the proper court, and by him approved for the same amount, and it now stands as an allowed claim for five thousand dollars against the estate, having the force and effect of a judgment payable in due course of administration.

This bill is filed to enforce the trust against the estate and the…

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.