Court Opinion

ID: 9575140
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:12:00.719125+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:48:04.045875
License: Public Domain

EDMONDS, J., Concurring.
I concur in the order of reversal but am of the opinion that, for the reasons stated by me in Syler v. Katzer, 12 Cal. (2d) 348, 350 [84 Pac. (2d) 137, 119 A. L. R. 422], it should include directions to the superior court to dismiss the action.
The claim sued upon specified that $30,500 was due “for services rendered per contract as companion nurse, and assistant to the deceased, which constituted caring for deceased’s financial affairs, and nursing deceased during his lifetime; that said services were rendered at the special instance and request of the deceased from May 1, 1928, to March 7, 1936”. It does not assert, as the complaint based upon it alleges, that the services were rendered under any continuing contract, or that Mr. Kratzer agreed to give plaintiff $20,000 payable upon his death, or provide for her in his will.
If either of the agreements pleaded in the complaint was made and services were rendered in consideration of it, the el aim should have so stated. But the respondent has pleaded a cause of action and offered evidence thereon which is entirely different from that asserted in her claim.
*103It is true that the administrator did not demur to the complaint, but at the commencement of the trial his counsel objected to the introduction of any evidence to prove its allegations upon the ground that the complaint does not state a cause of action. At the same time, counsel moved for judgment upon the pleadings, calling attention to the variance between the claim and the allegations of the complaint. Under these circumstances, I cannot agree with the conclusion of my associates that “it is now too late for the defendant to object to any formal deficiencies in the claim or in the statement of the cause of action”.
It is settled law that a claimant against an estate may only recover upon the cause of action stated in his claim. Obviously, a recovery upon grounds entirely different from those specified in the claim would be directly contrary to the purpose of such claims, which is to safeguard the property of decedents and require a claimant to submit the particulars of any indebtedness which he asserts against an estate before bringing suit.
Rehearing denied. Edmonds, J., and Houser, J., voted for a rehearing.