Estate of Selby

Good Law
1 Myrick 125
Superior Court of California, County of San FranciscoJanuary 17, 1877No. 6486California634 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

1—This is an application for the payment of interest upon the claims presented respectively by the following named persons:

It cannot be successfully claimed that the allowance by the executors and the Judge constitute a judgment. The claim is not then placed beyond criticism; is not binding upon the heir. Hot until the proceedings detailed in Secs. 1647 and 1649, C. C. P., viz: the reporting of its allowance, the settlement of the account, and the order for-its payment, does it lose the character of a claim, and take on the phase of a judgment. Hot till then can the claimant enforce payment, or have any process; not till then has it been ascertained and determined luhat are the debts of the deceased; not till then has the heir had any voice in the matter.

The action theretofore had, viz: allowance and approval, has been without any notice to the heir. According to Sec. 1920, C. C., a judgment, to bear interest as such, must be a *126 judgment “recovered in the courts of this State.” The action of a Judge, in approving the allowance of a claim, is not a judgment rendered by a Court.

2— The allowance and approval do not constitute a settlement of accounts, within the meaning 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.