Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

85 Cal. 137

Walkerly v. Bacon

California Supreme Court

Decided July 31, 1890

California Supreme Court · decided 1890-07-31

<p>Estates of Decedents — Bill in Equity for Portion of Claim Rejected — Enforcement of Parol Trust. — Where it appears that a decedent was the sole devisee of au estate which he received on distribution, subject to a parol trust to pay out of the estate a certain sum to the plaintiff, and that a claim against the estate of the decedent was presented by the plaintiff and allowed in part by the executors of the estate, and approved by the judge, a bill in equity will lie against the executors to enforce the trust against the estate as to the remainder of the claim, it further appearing that the claim to the balance of the demand was not waived, and that the claim was not stale nor barred by the statute of limitations. (Paterson, J., dissenting.)</p> <p>Id. —Demand upon Executors — Allowance of Portion of Trust Fund. — Such action cannot be maintained without a demand upon the executors; and the plaintiff cannot be concluded by their allowance of part of the trust fund claimed, if not accepted in satisfaction of the demand; though the executors might have refused to allow any portion of it, on the ground that it was to be established in equity, if at all.</p> <p>Id. — Effect of Allowed Claim—Estoppel of Creditor to Sue for Portion Disallowed. — An allowed claim against an estate has the force and effect of a judgment payable in due course of administration; and it is the duty of a claimant to file an allowance of part of his claim in the court within thirty days, to be paid in due course of administration; and he is not estopped by such action to sue either at law or in equity for the portion disallowed.</p> <p>Equity Jurisdiction— Consideration of Circumstances. — Equity is not bound to the strict legal rights of the parties, but will take into consideration all the circumstances, in order to arrive at the justice of the case.</p>

Relies on In re Estate of Glenn · Zirker v. Hughes

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1890-07-31

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently September 1981

10 state decisions

201890190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 →

Paterson, J., dissenting.

¶1I dissent. An entire demand cannot be thus split up into several causes of action. The claim allowed and filed for five thousand dollars has the force of a judgment (Estate of Glenn, 74 Cal. 567), and is a bar to this action for the balance. (Zirker v. Hughes, 77 Cal. 235; Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1503.)

/85/cal/137 · .json · Public domain