Opinion
Department One
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco directing the payment of a judgment.
The respondents were creditors of the estate of the decedent, and their claim having been rejected, they brought suit and recovered judgment, and filed a transcript thereof, properly certified, among the papers of the estate. The executor and executrix of the estate appealed from the judgment to the supreme court, which affirmed the judgment, whereupon the judgment creditors moved the trial court for an order directing the executor and executrix to pay to them the amount of the judgment. This the attorney for the executor and executrix objected to, on the ground, among others, that no certified transcript of the original docket on the remittitur from the supreme court had been filed among the papers of the estate in court. The court overruled the objection, to which the attorney for the executor and executrix excepted. The court then ordered that the executor and executrix pay over the amount of the judgment, from which order the present appeal was taken.
COUNSEL
Charles F. Hanlon, for Appellants.
James Gartlan, for Respondent.
OPINION
THE COURT This appeal is without merit. The judgment against the executors, which was rendered in the superior court, February 11, 1889, "established the claim in the same manner as if it had been allowed by the executors and the judge." (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1504.) The subsequent affirmance of that judgment in this court did not create a new or different judgment, or impose upon the plaintiff therein the necessity of "filing among the papers of the estate in court" a certified copy of the transcript of the docket of the judgment on the remittitur from this court.
The order is affirmed.