In re Estate of Byrne

Good Law
3 Coffey 69
Superior Court of California, County of San FranciscoDecember 14, 1889No. 9,383California716 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Coffey, J.

I have made a careful examination of the briefs of the respective counsel for ’ applicant and respondent in this matter, and have come to the conclusion that the order settling the account is final and appealable and conclusive as to all parties in interest: Code Civ. Proc., secs. 1637, 1908; Reynolds v. Brumagim, 54 Cal. 257 .

The counsel for the petitioner say, on page 7 of their reply brief, that they can see no difference between an order settling an administrator’s account required under Code of Civil Procedure, sections 1622 to 1624, and an order settling an annual account under Code of Civil Procedure, section 1628. This court has decided frequently that an order settling the account or exhibit under section 1622, Code of Civil Procedure, does not signify, as there is no provision made for a judgment of the court upon any such exhibit, it being simply for the information of the court, • and, therefore, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, sections 1632 and *70 1633, as to the settlement of accounts of an administrator, do not apply to an account or exhibit under Code of Civil Procedure, section 1622, which is to be made six months after the appointment of an…

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.