Goldtree v. McAlister
Citations
- 86 Cal. 93
- 24 P. 801
- 1890 Cal. LEXIS 979
Syllabus
<p>Estates of Decedents—Foreign Probate of Will—Authentication — Domestic Probate — Collateral Attack — Ejectment — Evidence. — The question as to whether or not a will had been duly proved and allowed in a foreign country or state, as expressed in section 1322 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is a fact which a court of this state entertaining jurisdiction to admit such will to probate must find from the evidence, and if the court found this fact upon insufficient evidence or without proper authentication of the foreign probate of the will, or without competent evidence, and thereupon proceeded to exercise jurisdiction, the action of the court in this respect is not void, hut merely erroneous, and subject only to direct attack upon appeal, and is not open to collateral attack in an action of ejectment in which the probate proceedings had in this state upon proof of such foreign probate are introduced in evidence to show title under the will.</p> <p>Id.—Adjudication of Jurisdictional Fact. — Conceding that the authentication of the foreign probate of such will is a jurisdictional fact, yet it belongs to that class of jurisdictional facts which the court must find from the evidence, and its decision thereon, whether erroneous or not, is conclusive as against a collateral attack.</p> <p>Foreclosure of Mortgage — Venue — Land in Two Counties — Presumption— Sale of Whole Land in One County.—A mortgage of land may be completely foreclosed in any of the counties in which any of the mortgaged property is situated, and where land situated iu two counties was sold under foreclosure proceedings by the sheriff of the county in which the proceedings were instituted, it will he presumed that the mortgaged property consisted of one body of land situated partly in each county, where the contrary does not appear, and that the sheriff was authorized to sell and convey the whole premises in such suit.</p> <p>Id. — Collateral Attack upon Foreclosure Sale. — Conceding that the decree aut
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- \Instructional errors that could only benefit a defendant are harmless.\
- “Instructional errors that could only benefit a defendant are harmless.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.