Case Name: BANK OF CHICO v. SPECT, Executrix, etc.
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1886-08-03
Citations: 2 Cal. Unrep. 675
Docket Number: No. 11,175
Parties: BANK OF CHICO v. SPECT, Executrix, etc.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Unreported Cases
Volume: 2
Pages: 675–675

Head Matter:
BANK OF CHICO v. SPECT, Executrix, etc.
No. 11,175;
August 3, 1886.
11 Pac. 740.
Administration — Presentation of Claims — Evidence.—Where there was no proof of the signature of the executor to the rejection of a claim against an estate, held, that there was no proof of the presentation of the claim.
Park Henshaw, for appellant, Bank of Chico; J. T. Harrington for respondent, Spect, executrix, etc.
Cited and approved in Murray v. Johnson (S. D.), 134 N. W. 207, where the plaintiff had offered no proof of the signature of the administrator attached to the rejection of the claim, relying on the clerk’s testimony that the claim was “a record of the probate court.” The court isays that since the statute does not require a rejected claim to be filed, it follows that a rejected claim is not, and cannot be, such a record.

Opinion:
By the COURT.
The answer raised an issue as to the presentation of the claim to the executor. The decision is sustained Toy the evidence. There was no proof of the signature of the executor to the rejection of the claim, and therefore no proof of presentment.
Judgment and order affirmed.