Legal Opinion

Chiapella v. County Nat. Bank Etc. Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided March 7, 1933No. Docket No. L.A. 13891PublishedCited by 4 opinions

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

  1. McLean v. CrowCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  2. Thompson v. WoodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  3. Gallagher v. McGrawCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Palmer v. GreggCalifornia Supreme Court · 1967
  2. Vickerson v. WehrCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
  3. Metzger v. SilvermanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976
  4. Metzger v. SilvermanAppellate Division of the Superior Court of California · 1976