Clarke v. Perry

Decided July 1, 1855

California Supreme Court · decided 1855-07-01

The plaintiff was a resident of Montreal, Canada, and sole heir of Charles E. Clarke, a deceased intestate. Held: “ that the allowance and settlement of the estate by the Probate Court of Sacramento county was conclusive against the plaintiff, and that no evidence would be admitted, proving or tending to prove that the settlement of the Probate Court was fraudulent on the part of the defendant, and not made according to law.” Plaintiff then…

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“•‘•Tile probate court is a court of special and limited jurisdictions. Most of its general powers belong peculiarly and originally to the court of chancery, which still retains all of its jurisdictions. Where therefore a bill is filed in chancery against an administrator, to compel him to account, by one who lias not been an actual party to a proceeding or settlement in the probate court, he may totally disregard such proceeding or settlement; and, although the seiilement in the probate court Is a final settlement, the complainant, who was no party to it, may treat it as a nulüty, and proceed to Invoke the equitable powers of the district court, and compel the administrator to a lull account.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Johnson v. Johnson

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1855-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently January 1915

1 district · 4 state decisions

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 →

Heydenfeldt, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

¶1Murray, C. J., concurred

¶2The Probate Court is a Court of special and limited jurisdictions. Most of its general powers belong peculiarly and originally to tlie Court of Chancery, which still retains all of its jurisdiction. Where, therefore, a bill is filed in chancery against an administrator to compel him to account, by one who has not been an actual party to a proceeding or settlement in the Probate Court, he may totally disregard such proceeding or settlement; and although the settlement in the Probate Court is a final settlement, the complainant, who was no party to it, may treat it as a nullity, and proceed to invoke the equitable powers of the District Court, and compel the administrator to a full account. The Court below erred in excluding the evidence offered by the complainant fo sustain the allegations of his bill, and tlie judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.