Chiapella v. County Nat. Bank Etc. Co.
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
THE COURT.
The lower court dismissed this cause for want of jurisdiction.
[1] A suit upon a rejected claim is not an exercise of probate jurisdiction. The action is upon the contract and venue is determined as in other civil cases. (McLean v. Crow,88 Cal. 644, 647 [26 P. 596]; Gallagher v. McGraw, 132 Cal. 601 [26 P. 596].) Such a suit is also recognized as a transitory action. It follows the person of the defendant and may be tried in a county other than that wherein the estate is being probated. (Thompson v. Wood, 115 Cal. 301 [64 P. 1080].)
The order is affirmed.
2Cases cited3 opinions
- McLean v. CrowCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Thompson v. WoodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Gallagher v. McGrawCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
3Cited by4 opinions
- Palmer v. GreggCalifornia Supreme Court · 1967
- Vickerson v. WehrCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
- Metzger v. SilvermanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976
- Metzger v. SilvermanAppellate Division of the Superior Court of California · 1976