Legal Opinion

Carstensen v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided June 25, 1928No. 5403PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGilbert, Circuit Judge

(after stating the facts as above). It is assigned as error that the trial court sustained a demurrer to the complaint for want of jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the action, until such time as the probate court should lose jurisdiction over the res. But it is a settled rule that a creditor may not bring an action against the surety on an- executor’s bond until after the final accounting and settlement of the estate in probate. Commonwealth v. Magee, 220 Pa. 201, 69 A. 805; Reed v. Hume, 25 Utah, 248, 70 P. 998; Probate Court v. Chapin, 31 Vt. 375. Exceptions to that rule are found in…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Waterman v. Canal-Louisiana Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1909
  2. Payne v. HookSupreme Court of the United States · 1869
  3. Sutton v. EnglishSupreme Court of the United States · 1918
  4. Hess v. ReynoldsSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
  5. Yonley v. LavenderSupreme Court of the United States · 1875

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Flanigan v. Security-First Nat. BankDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1941
  2. Ellis v. StevensDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1941
  3. Patuleia v. PatuleiaDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1955
  4. Putnam v. Citizens' Nat. Trust & Savings Bank of Los AngelesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1935
  5. Lemke v. JanderDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2021

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API