187 P. 33 | Cal. Ct. App. | 1919
Appellant was plaintiff in an action brought in the superior court to quiet title to certain lands claimed adversely by defendants. In her complaint she alleged that on a certain day she had been duly and regularly appointed administratrix of the estate of Herbert A. Jerauld deceased, and that immediately thereafter she duly qualified and continued to act as such; that the property which was the subject matter of the litigation was owned by the estate of said decedent and that she, as administratrix thereof, was entitled to the possession of the property. Adverse claims were alleged on the part of the defendants, and the usual prayer for the quieting of title was made. The defendant Chambers alone appeared and denied upon lack of information and belief the due appointment or qualification of the plaintiff as administratrix of said estate. Upon the trial it was shown that plaintiff was appointed administratrix upon the petition of A. A. Jerauld, the son of the deceased, which petition, after stating the jurisdictional facts and the written consent and request of A. A. Jerauld and Mrs. Susie Arnold, the son and daughter of the deceased, for the appointment of Mrs. Blanche Jerauld as administratrix, prayed that such appointment be made. The petition was signed by A. A. Jerauld, and by an attorney of the court, as counsel for petitioner. It was not signed by Mrs. Blanche Jerauld, but she consented to act, letters were issued to her, and she immediately qualified. *773 Upon this showing the court held that the plaintiff had not been legally appointed as such administratrix because she had not signed the petition, and rendered judgment against the plaintiff dismissing the action, each party to pay his own costs. The appeal is from this judgment.
Two points are raised upon the appeal. First, that the petition for the letters of administration was sufficiently signed; and, second, that in any event the order appointing the administratrix was not subject to collateral attack.
[1] The position of respondent is that under section
If one who is entitled to letters of administration files a petition asking that letters be granted to another, it would seem that the petitioner would be the "applicant" within the meaning of section
But, in any event, upon presentation of the petition, the court must hear proofs of the jurisdictional facts (Code Civ. Proc., sec.
For these reasons the judgment is reversed.
Langdon, P. J., and Brittain, J., concurred.