REFERENCES IN CONNECTION WITH THE TEXT TO THE CASES CITED IN TABLE OF CASES REPORTED, SHOWING WHERE THEY ARE DIGESTED IN THESE VOLUMES. LIBRARY OF THE LELAND STANFORD JR. UNIVERSITY. A.29834 Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1895, BY JAMES H. DEERING, In the office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. SAN FRANCISCO: THE FILMER-ROLLINS ELECTROTYPE COMPANY, o. Validity and Collateral Attack; Action to Set Aside; Enjoining. 5. Deed as Evidence of Title. VIII. Heirs, Rights and Liabilities of. 1. Proceedings to Determine Heirship. 8. Conveyances or Mortgages by. a. Law Governing. c. Rules and Order of Descent, d. Under Antenuptial Contract. f. Under the Mexican Law. Wills. See Wills. Wills, probate of. See Wills, X. I. Nature of Proceedings; Jurisdiction Over; What Law Governs. 1. The proceedings for the settlement of an estate, and matters connected therewith, are not civil actions within the meaning of sections 18 to 21 of the Practice Act. (Estate of Scott, 15 Cal. 220.) Cited 75 Cal. 599. 2. Proceedings in probate for the settlement of the estates of deceased persons are in the nature of proceedings in rem; and judgments rendered therein, so far as they relate to the disposition of the property of the estate, are binding upon the parties interested, without ceedings only such notice is required as is any personal notice to them. In these proprovided by positive law. (Kearney v. Kearney, 72 Cal. 591.) Settlement of estate is not a civil action. See Arrest, 8. 3. S. dies out of the state, leaving property in Santa Clara county, and the probate court thereof takes jurisdiction of the estate, and grants letters of administration to K. The widow subsequently files a petition to revoke the letters, on the ground that the probate court of San Francisco ought to have issued them, whereupon the administrator asks the court to transfer the cause to that court, representing that the widow and a majority of the witnesses resided there, and that the interest of several persons interested in the eswhich both parties agreed. The court made tate would be advanced by the transfer, to an order of transfer. The probate court of San Francisco, on the papers being filed therein, refused to take jurisdiction of the cause, and ordered the papers back. Held, that on these divest itself of jurisdiction, and vest it in the facts the probate court of Santa Clara could not probate court of San Francisco, and that court to take jurisdiction. (Estate of Scott, mandamus will not issue to compel the latter Cited 1 Wash. 188. 15 Cal. 220.) |