Rice v. Inskeep
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Third Judicial District, Santa Cruz County. This was an action to recover judgment against defendant as executor of the estate of Hiram Imus, deceased, upon a demand for two thousand six hundred and eighty-one dollars, alleged to have been incurred by said Hiram Imus in his lifetime, to plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court, Third Judicial District, Santa Cruz County. This was an action to recover judgment against defendant as executor of the estate of Hiram Imus, deceased, upon a demand for two thousand six hundred and eighty-one dollars, alleged to have been incurred by said Hiram Imus in his lifetime, to plaintiff. The complaint alleged the presentation of said claim (which was in due form) by plaintiff" to defendant, who at the time of said presentation was, and thereafter continued to be the executor, duly qualified and lawfully acting, of the estate of said Hiram Imus,…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Sanderson, J.:
The point that it' appears upon the face of the complaint that the action was not brought until more than three months after the rejection of the claim, is founded upon a mistake of counsel. The complaint was filed on the 14th of August, 1865. The claim was presented on the 8th day of May, 1865, but it was not rejected on that day, as counsel seem to ° suppose. On the contrary, the defendant retained the claim for more than ten days, refusing to indorse upon it either *226his allowance or rejection. At the expiration of the ten clays, the claim became a rejected claim…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Conlan v. GraceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1886
- Toulouse v. BurkettIdaho Supreme Court · 1886
- Bank of Stockton v. L. L. Howland & Co.California Supreme Court · 1871
- Fisher v. HopkinsWyoming Supreme Court · 1893
- Osborn v. ForesytheSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1915
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.