Court Opinion

ID: 9531169
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:08:17.96272+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:21.732529
License: Public Domain

CARTER, J.
I dissent.
In this case a resident and citizen of this country died testate leaving property situated in this state to German nationals. The estate consisted in part of real property. The decree of distribution did not distribute any of the property to the alien devisees. They sought relief from that decree by motion under section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Such relief was denied. As no appeal lies from the order of denial it can be reviewed as to “jurisdictional” questions by certiorari, and that is the present proceeding.
The majority hold that the denial order cannot be annulled because the court had jurisdiction under section 473 to consider and determine factual matters such as surprise, inadvertence, and excusable neglect. At least as to the real property there were no factual matters to be determined. The status of the aliens as such, and as devisees, is not disputed; nor is it disputed that a portion of the estate consisted of real property. If there existed an applicable treaty between Germany and this country it is controlling, regardless of section 259 of the Probate Code. There did exist such a treaty covering real property, and, as said in Estate of Knut*165zen, 31 Cal.2d 573, 577 [191 P.2d 747], when declaring the law as announced by the United States Supreme Court in Clark v. Allen, 331 U.S. 503 [67 S.Ct. 1431, 91 L.Ed. 1633, 170 A.L.R. 953]: “The nonresident alien heirs were entitled under the treaty to sell the realty and withdraw the proceeds, and it is immaterial that the property was sold by the administrator, apparently to get funds to pay debts and expenses, instead of by those heirs. In either event, they were entitled to share in the proceeds of the realty, and the Alien Property Custodian was entitled to claim their shares by reason of the vesting order.’’ (Emphasis added.)
The existence and terms of the treaty need not be proven. The probate court was bound to take judicial notice thereof. Our statute provides: “Courts take judicial notice of the following facts: . . . (3) Public and private official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of this state and of the United States, and the laws of the several states of the United States and the interpretation thereof by the highest courts of appellate jurisdiction of such states,” (emphasis added) (Code Civ. Proc., § 1875 (3)) and the authorities hold that courts take judicial notice of treaties. (See cases collected, Wigmore on Evidence, (3d ed.) vol. IX, § 2573, p. 556.) It is clear, therefore, that the court had no discretion but to grant relief, for it had rendered a decree of distribution contrary to the treaty—the supreme law of the land. A treaty is on a par with the Constitution as being the supreme law of the land.
The question is, therefore, whether an order may be annulled on certiorari which, on undisputed facts, is squarely contrary to constitutional mandate. In my opinion there can be no doubt about it. It is said in Rescue Army v. Municipal Court, 28 Cal.2d 460, 462 [171 P.2d 8]: “The constitutionality of a statute or ordinance may be tested by prohibition on the ground that invalidity of the legislation goes to the jurisdiction of the court to proceed to try the case. (See Whitney v. Superior Court, 182 Cal. 114 [187 P. 12]; Levy v. Superior Court, 105 Cal. 600 [38 P. 965, 29 L.R.A. 811]; Arfsten v. Superior Court, 20 Cal.App. 269, 275 [128 P. 949]; cf. Broady v. Jennings, 70 Cal.App. 647 [234 P. 120].) This rule is supported by the great weight of authority in other states. (See cases collected in 113 A.L.R. 796, 800; 42 Am. Jur. 168.) The same principle has been applied in cases where habeas corpus has been used to test the constitutionality of *166an ordinance. . . . The fact that a trial court has no jurisdiction within the meaning of the term as used in certiorari and prohibition proceedings does not mean that a judgment based upon an unconstitutional statute is open to collateral attack. ... In certiorari and prohibition proceedings the term jurisdiction has a very broad meaning, and a writ may be granted where the court has no jurisdiction to act except in a particular manner, even though it has jurisdiction, in the fundamental sense, over the subject matter and the parties. (Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal, 17 Cal.2d 280, 287 et seq. [109 P.2d 942,132 A.L.R. 715]; Hill v. Superior Court, 16 Cal.2d 527 [106 P.2d 876]; Fortenbury v. Superior Court, 16 Cal.2d 405 [106 P.2d 411].) ” Here the decree of distribution clearly ignored and failed to follow the treaty and the Constitution makes such treaty the supreme law of the land. Therefore, the decree is in violation of such supreme law. On the motion under section 473 the only permissible action by the trial court was to vacate the decree and order distribution in accordance with the treaty.
I would, therefore, grant the writ prayed for.