Hall

Hall v. Cottingham

Good Law
55 F.2d 659·1931 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1956
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMarch 27, 1931No. 328California4,162 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Cochran, J.

The plaintiffs brought this case for an accounting against the defendant Cottingham as administrator and guardian and the surety on his bond. By consent, the case was referred to a special master to hear and determine all issues, reserving however to the court tho right to review any ruling upon exceptions, with the power to modify, reverse, or affirm the report in whole or in part. The special master has filed his report, and the plaintiffs and the defendant Cottingham and the surety on his bond have filed exceptions.

It will be unnecessary to discuss in detail the various exceptions and points of law and fact involved. The main question concerns the jurisdiction of this court. The defendants contend: First, that this court has no jurisdiction, because of the pendency of the administration and guardianship proceedings in the probate court of the state; and, secondly, that even if this court has jurisdiction, *660 it should refrain from taking jurisdiction, on the ground of comity.

The special master held that in the state courts the jurisdiction of the probate courts is not exclusive, but that the court of common pleas on the equity side has jurisdiction to compel an accounting…

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.