Gillespie

Gillespie v. Wright

Good Law
1892 Cal. LEXIS 540·93 Cal. 169·28 P. 862
Supreme Court of CaliforniaFebruary 2, 1892No. 13895California808 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Foote, J.

This action was brought on a note which had been presented to the executrix above mentioned for allowance and been rejected by her. The appeal is from a judgment in favor of the defendant, and from an order refusing a new trial.

The points made are numerous, but we think that, upon the decision of those hereafter mentioned, this case is determinable in favor of the respondent. The claim was twice presented, and twice indorsed rejected by the executrix.

'•But it is claimed by appellant that there was no actual rejection on the first presentation, and therefore that the bar of the statute, under section 1498 of the Code of Civil Procedure, does not attach.

The finding of the trial court is opposed to this view, and, as we think, is supported by sufficient evidence.

It appears that on the first presentation the claim was actually rejected and so indorsed, and that the plaintiff’s attorney, deeming that it, as presented, was not perhaps sufficiently formal, again, at a later day, presented it to the attorney of the defendant for action by the executrix. The plaintiff’s attorney was not then, nor was he ever, told by the defendant’s attorney that the claim was informal, or that it…

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.