Abel v. Love & Fowler

Citations

• 17 Cal. 233

Syllabus

<p>A tenant in common of a water ditch can maintain an action to recover his share of the rents and profits of his cotenant in possession and collecting the same.</p> <p>Pico v. Columbet (12 Cal. 420) has no application to the case of money received by one tenant in common from sales of water, or profits derived from the business of a ditch or mine. These operations may be regarded as partnerships in this respect—the shareholders as partners being entitled to participate in the profits.</p> <p>Goodenow v. Ewer (16 Cal. 461) cited.</p> <p>A petition for letters of administration on an estate, stating that the deceased was “late a resident ” of the county, etc., instead of stating that his residence was there “ at or immediately preceding his death,” in the language of the statute, is sufficient to give jurisdiction.</p> <p>Where suit was brought to recover rents and profits of a ditch, and plaintiff’s title to the property came through a Public Administrator’s sale: Held, that it is not essential to the title that letters of administration were issued to the administrator, if he were duly authorized to administer by the judgment of the Probate Court having jurisdiction. The grant of administration was sufficient, and this could be shown in the case of a Public Administrator by production of the order or a copy—the mere failure to issue letters does not affect the jurisdiction.</p> <p>Query. Whether, in a proceeding of this kind, letters of administration are necessary to authenticate the title of an administrator other than the Public Administrator, where a grant of administration has been regularly made?</p> <p>Rogers v. Hoberlin (11 Cal. 120) was not designed to decide more than that the Public Administrator must show a grant of administration upon the particular estate.</p>