George Harlan died intestate, in the County of Santa Clara, in July, 1850. Immediately before and at the tune of his death, Harlan resided at the Mission of San José, which was at that time in the County of Santa Clara. In March, 1853, by an Act of the Legislature, the County of Alameda was formed out of territory taken in part from the County of Santa Clara. The territory so taken from the County of Santa Clara included the land on which said Harlan resided at the time of his death, and the place of said Harlan’s residence at that time, has ever since been, and it now is in the County of Alameda.
In June, 1863, the appellant, Charles Halsey, filed his petition in the Probate Court of Santa Clara County, stating, among other things necessary to entitle him to letters of administration, that Harlan died intestate in Santa Clara County, leaving real estate of great value in the County of San Francisco, that said Harlan at the time of his deаth was a resident of Santa Clara Comity, and concluding with a prayer that letters of administration be issued to him. This application was oppоsed by sundry parties claiming to be interested in the estates, as heirs or otherwise, on the ground, among others, that the Probate Court of Santa Clarа County had no jurisdiction, for the reason that the place of residence of Harlan at the time of his death was no longer in the County of Santa Clara, but at the time of the said application was a part of the County of Alameda. The petition was denied on that ground alone, аnd the only question presented by the record is, “ Whether the Probate Court of the County of Santa Clara has jurisdiction of the estate of the said George Harlan, deceased, and can grant letters of administration upon said estate; or whether such jurisdiction is in the County of Alameda?”
The Act of 1850 relating to this subject provides that “ Let
The Mission of San José continued to form a part of Santa Clara County for three years after the' death of Harlan, аnd during all that time the only Court that could take jurisdiction of the administration of his estate was the Probate Court of Santa Clara County. That county still exists, аnd its county government has been continued to the present time. Its territorial limits have been somewhat curtailed, it is true, but its legal identity is the same. The change in boundaries cannot affect the fact that Harlan died in Santa Clara County, and this is one of the jurisdictional facts prescribed by the stаtute. All the jurisdictional facts, then, once existed, and the Probate Court of that county, upon a proper presentation of those fаcts, would, at one time, have been authorized to take and it in fact did take cognizance of the administration of the estate. Unless somеthing has occurred to oust that tribunal of its right, it still exists, and we find nothing in the law withdrawing the jurisdiction from the Probate Court of Santa Clara County, unless the mere fact that the tract of land on which Harlan -resided at the time of his death has been taken from the County of Santa Clara, and in connection with other tеrritory erected into the new County of Alameda, works such a result. We do not see that this result necessarily follows. There is, in the nature of things, no neсessary connection between the land and the jurisdiction. It was found convenient to establish some uniform test of jurisdiction, and the Legislature adopted the arbitrary one of making the residence of the party at the time of his death that test, although his property might be, as in this instance, to a great extent, in some other locality.
When a party dies, the jurisdiction to administer upon his estate, under the provisions of the Act, becomеs fixed in the county of the residence of the decedent. The legal identity of the county may continue, notwithstanding its territorial limits
The provisions of the Act cited clearly do not embrace cases like the one under consideration. Had the Legislature intended to include such cases, they doubtless would have made provision for them. Ho such provision was made, and the presumption, frоm the fact of this omission, if any presumption can be indulged, is that the Legislatme did not intend to deprive the Probate Court of Santa Clara County of jurisdiсtion in those cases in which the right to take jurisdiction had already become fixed in the County of Santa Clara, by the death of a party while a resident of that county. In considering the question in the light of authority, we have found but one case directly in point. In the matter of Bugbee v. The Surrogate of Yates County,
For the reasons stated, and upon the authority of the case cited, we hold that the Probate Court of Santa Clara County has jurisdiction, withоut reference to the question as to the validity of the proceedings taken in the matter of Harlan’s estate in that county prior to the yеar 1853.
This view makes it unnecessary to consider the jooints made upon those proceedings, supposed to bear upon the presеnt question.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
Mr. Justice Rhodes, having been of counsel for petitioner, did not sit in the case.