Case Name: PAULINA WEIHE et al., Appellants, v. A. H. STATHAM et al., Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1885-05-28
Citations: 67 Cal. 84
Docket Number: No. 8256
Parties: PAULINA WEIHE et al., Appellants, v. A. H. STATHAM et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 67
Pages: 84–85

Head Matter:
[No. 8256.
Department One.
May 28, 1885.]
PAULINA WEIHE et al., Appellants, v. A. H. STATHAM et al., Respondents.
Estate of Decedent—Payment of Unlawful Clam—Action on Bond— Accounting.—The heirs of an intestate cannot maintain an action on the bond of an administrator to recover for a misappropriation of the funds of the estate until after an accounting has been had in the Probate Court, and the administrator has refused to pay .the amount adjudged against him.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
H. S. Dixon, for Appellants.
Sayle & Harris, and Bennett & Wigginton, for Respondents.

Opinion:
Ross, J.
This is an action by the heirs of William W. Hill, deceased, against the administrator of the estate and his-bondsmen to recover upon the bond, because of the allowance by the administrator and the probate judge of a claim against the estate alleged to have been barred by the Statute of Limitations and otherwise invalid, and its subsequent payment in part by the administrator, but without an order of the Probate Court. It affirmatively appears from the complaint that the administration of the estate of the deceased Hill is still pending in the Probate Court, and that no account of his administration has been presented by the administrator. It has several times been decided by this court that the allowance of a claim by the administrator and probate judge is not conclusive upon the heirs, but that they may contest such allowance in subsequent proceedings of the Probate Court. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1636; Estate of Loshe, 62 Cal. 413; Estate of Hill, 62 Cal. 186.) If the allowance of the claim sought to be contested by the present suit was improperly had, and objection is made at the proper time in the Probate Court having control of the administration, that court will doubtless vacate the allowance and compel the administrator to account for the money paid thereon out of the funds of the estate. It is for the Probate Court to settle the accounts of the administrator, and we have frequently so held. (In re Curtiss, 65 Cal. 572; Chaquette v. Ortet, 60 Cal. 594; and the authorities there cited.) After the status of the accounts has been fixed, if the administrator shall fail to pay what, if anything, may be adjudged against him, the plaintiffs will have their action upon the bond.
Judgment affirmed.
McKinstry, J., and McKee, J., concurred.