Case Name: SARAH E. McDANIEL et al., Respondents, v. J. H. PATTISON et al., Appellants
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1893-04-01
Citations: 98 Cal. 86
Docket Number: 14280
Parties: SARAH E. McDANIEL et al., Respondents, v. J. H. PATTISON et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 98
Pages: 86–103

Head Matter:
[ 14280.
In Bank
April 1, 1893.]
SARAH E. McDANIEL et al., Respondents, v. J. H. PATTISON et al., Appellants.
Equity Jurisdiction—Establishment 02? Lost or Spoliated Will—Exclusive Jurisdiction op Probate Court.—The jurisdiction of the probate court to establish a will is exclusive, even though the will has been lost or destroyed, or has been fraudulently suppressed; and a court of equity has no jurisdiction to grant relief in such a case, either directly or as incident to jurisdiction over other matters, even though the relief is sought by an alleged devises against tlie spoliator, and it appears that the latter is one of the two witnesses whose testimony would be necessary to prove the will under section 1339 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Id. — Cancellation op Deeds op Decedent at Suit op Devisees—Right op Heirs —Amendment op Complaint.—A complaint which seeks to annul and cancel certain deeds made by a decedent in his life-time, on the ground that they were fraudulently altered by the defendant so as to include all of the deceased grantor’s property, and to have the property so fraudulently included in the deed declared vested in the complainants, and which alleges that the plaintiffs are heirs-at-law of the decedent, and also,devisees under his last will and testament, which, it is alleged, had been fraudulently destroyed or suppressed by one of the defendants, and never probated, fails to state a cause of action, and a decree vesting title to the property, according to the alleged provisions of the will, will be reversed upon appeal, with liberty to amend the complaint by asserting only the rights of plaintiffs as heirs.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, and from an order denying a new trial.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court;
Anderson, Fitzgerald & Anderson, for Appellants.
The jurisdiction of the probate court over the probate of a¡ will is exclusive, and a court of equity has no jurisdiction thereof. (In re Broderick’s Will, 21 Wall. 517; Pomeroy’s Equity Jurisprudence, sec. 1158; Castro v. Richardson, 18 Cal. 478, 479; State v. McGlynn, 20 Cal. 273; 81 Am. Dec. 118; Rosenberg v. Frank, 58 Cal. 403; Hunten Will, 6 Ohio, 499.) The complaint fails to state a cause of action, as the relief sought is based upon the alleged will, but there is no allegation of the probate thereof, and a will without probate is of no avail. (See Castro v. Richardson, 18 Cal. 478; Dublin v. Chadbourn, 1C Mass. 441, 442; Olney v. Angell, 5 R. I. 198; 73 Am. Dec. 62; Armstrong v. Lear, 12 Wheat. 169.) The court clearly-erred in overruling the motion for a nonsuit. If, in this proceeding, it were permissible for the court to receive any testimony as to the execution and contents of the alleged will, jrefc it was error to permit its establishment without proof of its contents by at least two witnesses. (Code Civ. Proe., sec. 1339; Swinburn on Wills, sec. 2, pt. 14, par. 4.) The contention that the court had jurisdiction to set up the will because of its having been fraudulently destroyed by one whose interest was antagonistic to it, is without merit. A court of chancery has no jurisdiction to establish a spoliated will. (Morning-star v. Selby, 15 Ohio, 345; 45 Am. Dec. 579; Gaines v. Chew, 2 How. 619; Broderick’s Will, 21 Wall. 503; State v. McGlynn, 20 Cal. 266; 81 Am. Dec. 118. See Siddell v. Harris son, 73 Cal. 562.)
Chapman & Hendrick, for Respondents.
The cases cited by the appellant merely hold that a will cannot be used as a muniment of title unless it has first been probated, and that one cannot institute a proceeding merely to probate a will in a court of equity; but this action is not one for the probate of a will, but is an action to have a title of the devisees under a fraudulently suppressed or destroyed will confirmed as against the spoliators, and in such a case a court of equity clearly has jurisdiction. (Campbell v. Wise, 4 Mon. B. 442; Bell v. Stiles, 2 N. J. Eq. 220, 229,'; Bowen v. Idley, 6 Paige, 46; Adam v. Adam, 27 Vt. 50; Buchannan v. Mat-lock, 8 Humph. 390; 47 Am. Dec. 622; Pomeroy’s Equity Jurisprudence, sec. 919; 6 Wait’s Actions and Defenses, 377, 378; 3 Redfield on Wills, p. 16, ch. 1, sec. 7, and note 12, pp. 17, 18.)

Opinion:
The Court. —
We are satisfied, with opinions filed and the conclusion reached by Department One when this case was before it for decision, and the judgment is therefore reversed.
In their petition for a rehearing respondents, claim that they are entitled to assert their rights as heirs, but it is evident from the pleadings, findings, and decree that the parties and the court below ¡proceeded upon the theory that plaintiffs were claiming as devisees and not as heirs. The decree therefore cannot be modified, but we think there is enough in the complaint to justify an order allowing the plaintiffs to amend their complaint? if they desire so to do, so as to assert any claim they may have by reason of their heirship.
The judgment and order are reversed, and the cause is remanded with directions to allow the parties to amend their pleadings, if they be so advised.
Garoutte, J., McFarland, J., Paterson, J., Harrison, J.