Case ID: cal_49/html/0071-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Court :", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[No. 4,368.]
    PETER CRAIG, Administrator of the Estate of J. H. Mullins, Deceased, v. MICHAEL C. BATEMAN, JOHN O’CONNOR and TIMOTHY P. REARDEN.
    Sufficiency of Denials in an Answer.—If an admistrator brings an action against a former administrator of the same estate and his sureties, and, in his complaint, states the proceedings resulting in the appointment of the former administrator, his removal, and the appointment of the plaintiff, and then avers that the former administrator was afterwards cited to render an account, and rendered one; and that the Court settled the account, and rendered a final decree, in which it found that he was indebted to the estate in a sum named; and the defendants, in their answer, deny that there had been a final settlement of the accounts, or that a final decree had been entered in the Probate Court upon such settlement, the denials are sufficient to defeat a motion for judgment on the pleadings, even if the denials are coupled with an allegation that an appeal to the Supreme Court has been taken from the only decree rendered.
    Appeal from the District Court, Third Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco.
    The complaint averred that,' August 19, 1870, the will of J. H. Mullins, deceased, was probated in the Probate Court of the City and County of San Francisco, and letters were issued to defendant Bateman as executor; that the other defendants signed his bond as sureties, and that he was afterwards removed for mismanagement, and the plaintiff was appointed administrator in his place; that the plaintiff caused a citation to be issued requiring Bateman to appear and render an account; that, upon the hearing, the Court settled the account, and found him indebted to the estate in the sum of $5047 46, and rendered a final decree that he pay the same to the plaintiff, which decree was in full force and effect. Judgment was asked for said sum.
    The defendants, in their answer, denied that the Probate Court made a final settlement of the account, or that it made a final decree whereby any money was found due by Bateman. The answer then denied that “ said decree, or any decree against defendant Bateman * * * has, since said date, or since any other date, been, or is now in full force or effect,” and alleged that the only decree rendered against Bateman had been appealed from to the Supreme Court. The Court, on motion of the plaintiff, rendered judgment against the defendants on the pleadings. The defendants appealed.
    
      McAllisters & Bergin and J. J. McElhinny, for the Appellants.
    
      Crane & Johnson and A. C. Searle, for the Respondent.
   By the Court :

We are of opinion that the answer of the defendants, in so far as it denies that there had been a final settlement of the accounts of Bateman, and denies that a final decree had been entered in the Probate Court upon such settlement, was sufficient in form and substance to defeat a motion for judgment in favor of the plaintiff on the pleadings.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial. Remittitur forthwith.