Clary

Clary v. Clary

Good Law
112 Cal. 292·1896 Cal. LEXIS 678·44 P. 569
Supreme Court of CaliforniaApril 6, 1896S. F. No. 150California802 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Fleet, J.

The administrator, upon distribution, took the share of the estate (consisting of moneys), distributed to an heir, and appropriated and used it in his own business through a series of years, concealing from the heir, a minor residing in his household, any knowledge that there was anything coming to her from the estate.

In due time, after arriving at the age of majority and discovering her rights, the heir applied to the probate court, the administrator not having been discharged of his trust, to require the latter to pay over to her such distributive share, with interest.

The court ordered the administrator to pay over the amount, with legal interest from the date of its appropriation, compounded annually.

From this order, and an order refusing to settle a bill of exceptions, the administrator appeals.

*294 There is nothing in the point that the probate court lost jurisdiction in the premises upon the entry of the decree of distribution, and that the only remedy of the heir was by civil action against the administrator. Jurisdiction by the probate court over an administrator or executor does not cease until his final discharge (McCrea v. Haraszthy, 51 Cal. 146 ; Dohs v. Dohs,…

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.