Hensley

Hensley v. Superior Court

Good Law
111 Cal. 541·1896 Cal. LEXIS 619·44 P. 232
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMarch 12, 1896S. F. No. 423California667 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

The superior court refused to make or enter an order or decree of due notice to creditors in the estate of one Calvin P. Hensley, deceased, pending therein, notwithstanding it appeared that an order had been theretofore made therein directing “that notice to the creditors be given in the Daily Record Union,” and that under said order a notice, proper in form, had been duly published in the designated paper once a week for a period of four successive weeks.

Petitioner, the executrix of said estate, seeks mandate here to compel the making and entry of such decree.

It appears that the judge of the superior court refused' to make the order, for the reason that he construed section 1490 of the Code of Civil Procedure to require that in all instances the order for notice to creditors must specify the number of times the notice shall be published; and that as the order, the substantive part of which is above set out, did not so specify, it was held void, and the notice given under it, for that reason, of no effect.

We regard this view of the statute as erroneous. While not wholly free from ambiguity, we think it sufficiently clear that the meaning of section 1490 is, that only in…

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.