State v. Superior Court of Thurston County
| Decision Date | 09 March 1909 |
| Citation | 52 Wash. 149,100 P. 198 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. MANN et al. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THURSTON COUNTY. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Application for writ of review by the State, on the relation of Edna Mann and others, against the Superior Court of Thurston County. Writ denied.
Troy & Sturdevant and S. P. Richardson, for respondent.
Edward Harkness died testate at his home in Los Angeles county Cal., on the 24th day of December, 1907. He left an estate in California subject to administration, also an estate in Thurston county of this state. The property in Thurston county, with the exception of two lots devised to his daughter, was devised to his widow for life, and, after her death, to his two sons, share and share alike. The will was admitted to probate in the superior court of Los Angeles county, Cal and the widow was appointed administratrix with the will annexed. The California estate is now in process of administration there. A copy of the will and of the original record of probate, authenticated by the attestation of the clerk of the court in which probation was made, was filed in the superior court of Thurston county. The will was admitted to probate, and one Walter Crosby was appointed administrator with the will annexed at the instance and request of the widow of the deceased. On the 13th day of January, 1909, the devisees named in the will, other than the widow, appeared specially in the court below, and moved that court to dismiss the probate proceedings instituted here on substantially two grounds: First, because the foreign will was never admitted to probate; and, second, because there was no necessity for administration in this state. The petition was denied, and the petitioner thereupon applied to this court for a writ of review to review the action of the superior court in denying the motion to dismiss. The case is now before us on the return to the order to show cause why the writ should not issue as prayed.
The return shows that the will was in fact admitted to probate in the court below, but through inadvertence the order of probation was not entered. The first assignment of error is therefore untenable. Nor does it appear that there is no necessity for administration in this state. The California court has no jurisdiction over the real property of the decedent having its situs in this state, and the proceedings in that court will not bar the claims of creditors residing in this state, if any such there be, in so far as the property in this state is concerned. Sections 6120, 6121, Ballinger's Ann. Codes & St. (Pierce's Code, §§ 2410, 2411) provide as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
THE PRINCESS SOPHIA
...of a deceased person from another state. Barlow & Sheppard v. George Coggan, 1 Wash. Terr. 257; see, also, State, etc., v. Superior Court, etc., 52 Wash. 149, 100 P. 198; St. Louis, etc., Co. v. Seale, 229 U. S. 156, 33 S. Ct. 651, 57 L. Ed. 1129. In Colvin et al. v. Jones et al., 194 Mich.......
-
In Re Vasgaard’s Estate, 7647
...in, harmony, some decisions indicating that this cannot be done (In re Strong [1898] 119 Cal. 663, 51 P. 1078; State ex rel Mann v. Superior Court [I909] 52 Wash. 149, 100 P. 198), while perhaps a greater number held, in substance, that it can be done (Note 46 Am. Dec. 437; Phillips v. Phil......
-
Onewest Bank v. Erickson
...title or transfers of Washington land. Werner v. Werner, 84 Wash.2d 360, 367, 526 P.2d 370 (1974). In State ex rel. Mann v. Superior Court, Thurston County, 52 Wash. 149, 100 P. 198 (1909), Edward Harkness died testate at his home in Los Angeles, California. He left an estate in California ......
-
OneWest Bank, FSB v. Erickson
...title or transfers of Washington land. Werner v. Werner, 84 Wash.2d 360, 367, 526 P.2d 370 (1974). In State ex rel. Mann v. Superior Court, Thurston County, 52 Wash. 149, 100 P. 198 (1909), Edward Harkness died testate at his home in Los Angeles, California. He left an estate in California ......