Carstensen

Carstensen v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

Good Law
27 F.2d 11·1928 U.S. App. LEXIS 3314
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 25, 1928No. 5403California637 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Gilbert, J.

(after stating the facts as above). It is assigned as error that the trial court sustained a demurrer to the complaint for want of jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the action, until such time as the probate court should lose jurisdiction over the res. But it is a settled rule that a creditor may not bring an action against the surety on an- executor’s bond until after the final accounting and settlement of the estate in probate. Commonwealth v. Magee, 220 Pa. 201 , 69 A. 805 ; Reed v. Hume, 25 Utah, 248 , 70 P. 998 ; Probate Court v. Chapin, 31 Vt. 375 . Exceptions to that rule are found in eases, some of which are cited by the plaintiff, where claims have been judicially ascertained and by the probate court ordered paid, or where there has been such maladministration of the estate as to constitute a breach of the conditions of the bond, or where the executor has fled from the state, so that jurisdiction cannot be had to compel an accounting. The present case does not come within any of the exceptions, for the claim has not by the probate court been ordered paid. Section 1543, Remington Code, provides: “No claim against the estate shall be paid until the same shall first have…

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.