From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Harper v. Strutz

Supreme Court of California
Oct 1, 1879
53 Cal. 655 (Cal. 1879)

Summary

In Harper v. Strutz, 53 Cal. 655, it was held that during administration the heir cannot maintain an action of ejectment or to quiet title.

Summary of this case from Wilson v. Stoudamire

Opinion

         Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, Sacramento County.

         The action was brought to quiet title to a lot in Sacramento, which was part of the undistributed estate of Rosanna Keenan, one Bronner being the administrator with the will annexed. Judgment was rendered for defendants, and plaintiff appealed.

         COUNSEL:

         J. H. McCune and DuBrutz & Dickson, for Appellant.

          Geo. Cadwalader, for Respondents, cited Meeks v. Kerby , 47 Cal. 169; Chapman v. Hollister , 42 Cal. 463; Cunningham v. Ashley , 45 Cal. 491.


         OPINION          THE COURT

         The judgment is affirmed, because it appears by the record that at the time the action was brought there had been no distribution of the estate of Rosanna Keenan, deceased, and Bronner was still administrator of her estate, with the will annexed.

         Judgment affirmed. Remittitur forthwith.


Summaries of

Harper v. Strutz

Supreme Court of California
Oct 1, 1879
53 Cal. 655 (Cal. 1879)

In Harper v. Strutz, 53 Cal. 655, it was held that during administration the heir cannot maintain an action of ejectment or to quiet title.

Summary of this case from Wilson v. Stoudamire
Case details for

Harper v. Strutz

Case Details

Full title:S. G. HARPER v. JULIUS STRUTZ and H. A. FOX

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Oct 1, 1879

Citations

53 Cal. 655 (Cal. 1879)

Citing Cases

Wolfson v. Beatty

[1] Defendant Beatty contends: First: The complaint does not state a cause of action on behalf of plaintiff…

Wilson v. Stoudamire

Prior to 1872 this particular clause was not in section 114, Probate Code of 1851, upon which Code of Civil…