Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

22 Cal. 71

Rogers v. King

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1863

California Supreme Court · decided 1863-07-01

This was an agreed case for submission of a controversy without action, in which the plaintiff seeks to recover 15,000 as the purchase price of a lot of land. By the contract of sale the defendant was to take the land at that price, provided the title was good. The plaintiff’s title to the land was derived through the will of one Romain DeBoom, and the only question raised as to its validity was whether the will was properly and legally admitted to Probate.

Relies on Irwin v. Scriber

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1863-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently May 1961

10 state decisions

3018631870188018901900191019201930194019501960decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Norton, J. delivered the opinion of the Court—Cope, C. J. concurring.

¶1The agreed case states that Cornelius DeBoom (the executor named in the will) filed in the Probate Court a petition for the probate of the will of Romain DeBoom, and filed therein an *73authenticated copy of said will, and that the petition stated all the necessary facts and Avas sworn to, and that due and legal notice was published. It is also shoAvn that a judgment was entered admitting the Avill to probate, and that the will Avas thereupon duly recorded.

¶2If, as is agreed, the petition stated ah the necessary facts, then upon its presentation with a copy of the will, and the publication of due and legal notice, the Court acquired jurisdiction to probate the will, and the judgment of the probate thereafter entered is conclusive. If any irregularities occurred in the proceedings or error in the judgment after jurisdiction was acquired, they could only be corrected by a direct proceeding for that purpose, and cannot be inquired into in this collateral proceeding. (Irwin v. Scriber, 18 Cal. 499; In the Matter of the Estate of Preston Warfield, ante 51.) any error-We do not, however, by this remark, intend to intimate that any error occurred in the probate proceedings.

¶3judgment affirmed. ----* ___A

/22/cal/71 · .json · Public domain