Ex parte Orford

Good Law
102 Cal. 656·36 P. 928
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJune 8, 1894No. 21131California426 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

The petitioner is administratrix of an estate in probate. As such she was ordered by the superior court, in which the administration was pending, to *657 pay a claim allowed on account of expenses of the last illness of her intestate. From this order she took an appeal to this court. Notwithstanding her appeal she was cited by the superior court to show cause why she should not be punished for a contempt of its authority, in failing or refusing to pay said claim. After a hearing she was found guilty of the contempt charged, and sentenced to be imprisoned until she should make the payment as directed. Upon being taken into custody she sued out this writ to test the legality of the imprisonment.

We are of the opinion that the imprisonment is illegal. This court has appellate jurisdiction in “ all such probate matters as may be provided by law.” (Const., art. VI, sec. 4.) By section 963 of the Code of Civil Procedure, an appeal may be taken from an order directing the payment of a debt or claim. The statute makes no limitation as to the amount of the debt or claim, and the fact that the claim in question here is less than three hundred dollars does not impair the right of…

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.