Opinion ID: 1447258
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: proof of creditor's claim

Text: Defendant argues here that plaintiff brought this case as a creditor of the estate but failed to prove the essential presentation of creditor's claim. Her argument is based largely on Delfelder v. Farmers' State Bank of Riverton, 38 Wyo. 481, 269 P. 418, 270 P. 1081, and other cases to a similar effect, holding that where the party seeking relief is restricted to his remedy at law for damages and must necessarily proceed upon the theory he is a creditor of the deceased, he must present claim therefor within the prescribed time. Defendant's contention is without force in the present situation since she overlooks the circumstance that Delfelder and the other cases to which she makes reference do not relate to the enforcement of a contract to devise or bequeath property, which subject as noted by plaintiff was discussed in Hawkey v. Williams, 72 Wyo. 20, 261 P.2d 48, 68, where Judge Riner quoted 4 Page, Wills, § 1756, p. 935 (Lifetime Edition)  now 1 Bowe-Parker: Page, Wills, § 10.50, p. 548 (1960)  to the effect that under the majority holding a promisee attempting to enforce a contract to devise or bequeath property need not comply with the provisions of a statute requiring presentation of a creditor's claim. It must be noted that the Hawkey case is not fully in point since it deals with an action for specific performance rather than one for damages for breach of contract as in the instant litigation. Nevertheless, the defendant's contention that there is a failure of proof as to the presentation of the creditor's claim cannot be countenanced, as the pretrial memorandum was specific in incorporating within it plaintiff's pretrial conference memorandum which recited the filing of the creditor's claim and the rejection thereof. In Dixon v. Credit Bureau of Douglas, Wyo., 419 P.2d 707, 709, we said under Rule 16, W.R.C.P., this limiting of the issues of trial by the court controlled the subsequent course of the action, and It is manifestly improper that there now be raised another issue. 1A Barron and Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure, p. 848 (1960), states that where an admission or agreement concerning a factual issue is made and carried into effect by    [pretrial] order of the court, unless the order is thereafter modified by the court, the issue stands as fully determined as if adjudicated after the taking of testimony.