California Supreme Court, 1933

Chiapella v. County Nat. Bank Etc. Co.

California Supreme Court · Decided March 7, 1933

19 P.2d 983; 217 Cal. 503; 1933 Cal. LEXIS 639 (Pacific Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision.

Metzger v. Silverman (Cal. Ct. App. 1976)
Metzger v. Silverman (Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California 1976)
Palmer v. Gregg (Cal. 1967)
Vickerson v. Wehr (Cal. Ct. App. 1941)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

THE COURT.

The lower court dismissed this cause for want of jurisdiction.

[1] A suit upon a rejected claim is not an exercise of probate jurisdiction. The action is upon the contract and venue is determined as in other civil cases. (McLean v. Crow,88 Cal. 644, 647 [26 P. 596]; Gallagher v. McGraw, 132 Cal. 601 [26 P. 596].) Such a suit is also recognized as a transitory action. It follows the person of the defendant and may be tried in a county other than that wherein the estate is being probated. (Thompson v. Wood, 115 Cal. 301 [64 P. 1080].)

The order is affirmed.

*Page 504

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.