Horton

Horton v. Jack

Good Law
1894 Cal. LEXIS 1241·4 Cal. Unrep. 758·37 P. 652
Supreme Court of CaliforniaSeptember 4, 1894No. 19,328California3,162 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Temple, J.

This appeal is from the judgment and from an order refusing a new trial. The complaint shows that James A. Brown died testate October 26, 1889, in the county of Santa Barbara, leaving his widow, Catherine J. Brown, his executrix; that said will was duly admitted to probate, the said Catherine J. appointed executrix, and that she duly qualified as such, and took possession of the property of the estate, consisting in part of certain personal property, which is specifically described in the complaint; that on the fifteenth day of April, 1890, while the said executrix was lawfully possessed of said property, as the property of the estate, defendants “wrongfully and without right took and carried away said personal property, and the whole thereof, and converted and disposed of the same to their own use.” Said property was at the time of the value of $6,000. Catherine J. Brown died April 17, 1892, not having closed the administration. *760 Proper allegations follow, showing due appointment and qualification of plaintiff as administrator with the will annexed. The complaint was demurred to for insufficiency of facts, and because it appeared from the complaint that the cause of action…

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.