From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pyatt v. Brockman

Supreme Court of California
Oct 1, 1856
6 Cal. 418 (Cal. 1856)

Summary

In Pyatt v. Brockman (6 Cal. 418), Brockman was not aggrieved personally; yet the case illustrates both the convenience and necessity of an appeal, as well as the interest of the trustee of such a trust to support one.

Summary of this case from Bates v. Ryberg

Opinion

         Appeal from the Probate Court of Sonoma County.

         This was an application by Artemesia Pyatt and others, heirs at law of Hiram Smith, deceased, in the Court below, for an order on Israel Brockman, to show cause why he should not pay over to the petitioners the sum of $ 3,552 29, placed in his hands by the Court a year before, to keep safely for Hiram Smith, Jr., a non-resident minor heir at law of the intestate, that being his share of the estate, under an order providing that, if the said Hiram Smith, Jr., did not appear and claim it within one year, then that Brockman was to pay the money equally among the other heirs of the intestate. On the return of the rule, it was made absolute, Brockman not appearing; and Brockman was ordered to distribute the money in his hands equally among the petitioners; it appearing that Hiram Smith, Jr., had not appeared or claimed the money. Brockman appealed.

         COUNSEL:

         I. The Probate Court erred in proceeding by default against the appellant, and for want of proper parties.

         II. The notice of respondent, that he would apply for a rule to show cause, is not of itselfa rule, and none was served on appellant, and he was not in default.

         III. There is no showing that Hiram Smith, Jr., had abandoned his claim, that he was of age, or that he was dead, or if dead, who were his heirs.

         L. Sanders, Jr., for Appellant.

          Thomas & Hempstead, for Respondent.


         JUDGES: Mr. Justice Heydenfeldt delivered the opinion of the Court. Mr. Chief Justice Murray concurred.

         OPINION

          HEYDENFELDT, Judge

         This is a proceeding which is totally unauthorized, and the petitioners have no right whatever to the fund they seek. It is the money of Hiram Smith, Jr., and must remain his until he dies, or disposes of it. The duty of Brockman is to pay it into the State Treasury, where it must remain until the owner comes to reclaim it, or in case of his death, it is claimed by his representatives.

         The order of the Probate Court is reversed.


Summaries of

Pyatt v. Brockman

Supreme Court of California
Oct 1, 1856
6 Cal. 418 (Cal. 1856)

In Pyatt v. Brockman (6 Cal. 418), Brockman was not aggrieved personally; yet the case illustrates both the convenience and necessity of an appeal, as well as the interest of the trustee of such a trust to support one.

Summary of this case from Bates v. Ryberg
Case details for

Pyatt v. Brockman

Case Details

Full title:PYATT v. BROCKMAN

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Oct 1, 1856

Citations

6 Cal. 418 (Cal. 1856)

Citing Cases

Storrie v. Cortes

Adams v. Bateman, 30 S.W. Rep., 855; Sydnor v. Gascoigne, 11 Tex. 455; Willis v. Owen, 43 Tex. 48 [ 43 Tex.…

Quinlan v. H. T. C. Ry. Co.

The construction given to the Constitution of 1869 by the court in the cases of Railway v. Commissioner, 36…