In re Estate of Couts

Good Law
100 Cal. 400·1893 Cal. LEXIS 807·34 P. 865
Supreme Court of CaliforniaDecember 2, 1893No. 19300California783 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Harrison, J.

Upon the former appeal herein ( 87 Cal. 480 ), it was held that the petition for the order of sale was sufficient, and that determination is conclusive of the question upon the present appeal. The subsequent permission of the court below to allow Mrs. Dear to file objections to granting an order of sale does not give her any right to renew the objections to the sufficiency of the petition. By the proper publication of the order to show cause why the petition should not be granted, she was brought within the jurisdiction of the court, and was bound by its action as fully by her default for not appearing as if she had appeared and contested the sufficiency of the petition; and the determination by this court upon an appeal from that order was equally binding upon her. We do not, however, wish to be understood as intimating that the petition is in any respect defective, but to show that the question cannot be regarded us open for discussion.

It is not necessary for the court below, after our reversal of its former order, to again give the notice required by section 1539 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By the original compliance with the require- *403 merits of that section it had…

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.