28 Cal. 567, Coleman v. Woodworth

Citation:28 Cal. 567
Opinion Judge:SANDERSON, Judge
Party Name:WILLIAM T. COLEMAN, HENRY CARLTON, Jr., and EDWARD MOTT ROBINSON, v. F. A. WOODWORTH and C. W. HOWARD, Administrators of the Estate of CHARLES DOANE, Deceased
Attorney:Jabish Clement, for Appellants. George F. & Wm. H. Sharp, for Respondents.
Judge Panel:JUDGES: Sanderson, C. J. Mr. Justice Shafter expressed no opinion.
Case Date:October 01, 1865
Court:Supreme Court of California

Page 567

28 Cal. 567

WILLIAM T. COLEMAN, HENRY CARLTON, Jr., and EDWARD MOTT ROBINSON,

v.

F. A. WOODWORTH and C. W. HOWARD, Administrators of the Estate of CHARLES DOANE, Deceased

Supreme Court of California

October, 1865

Appeal from the District Court, Twelfth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco.

Charles Doane was Sheriff of the City and County of San Francisco, and as such, an execution on a judgment in favor of N.C. Lane and against Harvey Dickinson was placed in his hands. By virtue of the execution, Doane seized personal property claimed by plaintiffs, and they brought an action against him for the wrongful taking and conversion of the same. Pending the action Doane died, and plaintiffs' attorneys suggested his death, and moved that his administrators be substituted as defendants in the action. The Court granted the motion, defendants' counsel excepting.

Plaintiffs recovered judgment in the Court below, and defendants appealed.

COUNSEL:

Jabish Clement, for Appellants.

The rule of law is, that where the wrongful act of the decedent did not result in any benefit to the estate, no cause of action survives against the administrator. This rule is laid down, and all the previous authorities upon the subject are cited and discussed in People v. Gibb, 9 Wend. 30. To the same effect are Wilbur v. Gilmore, 21 Pick. 252; Osborne v. Bell , 5 Denio, 370-76.

George F. & Wm. H. Sharp, for Respondents.

JUDGES: Sanderson, C. J. Mr. Justice Shafter expressed no opinion.

OPINION

SANDERSON, Judge

Page 568

I. The first point made by counsel for appellants, to the effect that the cause of action set forth in the complaint does not survive against the personal representative of the defendants' intestate, is answered by the one hundred and ninety-seventh section of the Act to regulate the settlement of the estates of deceased persons, which provides that " any person or his personal representatives shall have an action against the executor or administrator of any testator or intestate who in his lifetime shall have wasted, destroyed, taken or carried away, or converted to his own use, the goods or chattels of any such person, or committed any trespass upon the real estate of such...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP