Clarke v. Perry

         1. The appellant having introduced in the Court below the decree or order of the Probate Court on the settlement of the final account of the administrator, (the respondent,) he could not be permitted to attack his own evidence.

         2. The decree of the Probate Court was conclusive. 6 Pick. 422. 5 Watts, 90. 4 Washington C. C. R. 657. 1 Greenl. 18. 14 Pick. 405. 7 Ibid. 1. 6 Cowen, 494. 6 Porter, 236. 2 Cowen & Hill's Notes, 65-69.

         3. If there was no settlement by the Probate Court, the whole matter is still pending before that tribunal.

         JUDGES: Heydenfeldt, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Murray, C. J., concurred.

         OPINION

          HEYDENFELDT, Judge

         The Probate Court is a Court of special and limited jurisdictions. Most of its general powers belong peculiarly and originally to the Court of Chancery, which still retains all of its jurisdiction. Where, therefore, a bill is filed in chancery against an administrator, to compel him to account, by one who has not been an actual party to a proceeding or settlement in the Probate Court, he may totally disregard such proceeding or settlement; and although the settlement in the Probate Court is a final settlement, the complainant, who was no party to it, may treat it as a nullity, and proceed to invoke the equitable powers of the District Court, and compel the administrator to a full account. The Court below erred in excluding the evidence offered by the complainant to sustain the allegations of his bill, and the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

         As to the jurisdiction of District Courts, as Courts of Equity in proceedings against administrators, see: Wilson v. Roach , 4 Cal. 362; Sanford v. Head, post, 297; Belloc v. Rogers , 9 Cal. 123; Deck v. Gerke , 12 Cal. 433; Griggs v. Clark , 23 Cal. 427.

         Under the Constitutional Amendments of 1862, the District Courts have no jurisdiction to try issues out of the Probate Courts. Will of Bowen , 34 Cal. 682. Upon the general question of concurrent jurisdiction, referring to the amendments, the opinion states: " This is a comprehensive grant of probate jurisdiction, and as there is nothing in the Article granting concurrent jurisdiction, the grant to the Probate Courts must be held exclusive. There may be cases involving matters peculiar to Probate Courts, of which the District Courts may have jurisdiction; but matters like the probate of a will, the granting of letters testamentary or of administration, the allowance of claims, the settlement of the accounts of the executor or administrators, etc., were well understood at the time of the adoption of the amendments to the Constitution as falling within the probate jurisdiction." See Walls v. Walker , 37 Cal. 426; Bradrip v. Bradrip , 56 Cal. 565; Rosenburg v. Frank , 58 Cal. 400.