Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
ROWLEY v. BRYSON.
In this action on a creditor's claim against the estate of a decedent, the court sustained a demurrer to the first amended complaint without leave to amend. From the resulting judgment plaintiff appeals.
The claim, which was rejected in its entirety, was for the sum of $3,500, being the amount of insurance under a life insurance policy in which plaintiff's intestate, Burt M. Rowley, was beneficiary, and defendant's intestate, Edgar T. Albert, was the insured. Plaintiff's right to the money was alleged to be founded upon a contract under which Rowley agreed to, and did, take charge of, nurse, and care for Ada Albert, sister of Edgar Albert, in consideration of the latter's agreement, under which Rowley was to, and did, become beneficiary, and he or his heirs were to receive the proceeds of the policy, which agreement it was alleged was fully performed by Rowley, who predeceased Albert. The defect in the complaint, because of which the demurrer was sustained, is the failure to allege that the proceeds of the policy had ever been received by defendant administrator. This defect is fatal to the complaint. No indebtedness was created under the agreement as between the parties. The defendant estate did not owe the plaintiff estate anything in the absence of collection of the proceeds of the policy by the former.
The complaint did not allege facts showing any indebtedness owing by defendant estate, and the demurrer was therefore properly sustained. Plaintiff had ample opportunity to allege the receipt of the money by defendant, but failed to do so, and likewise failed to seek leave to amend the complaint to cure the defect. The demurrer was therefore properly sustained without leave to amend.
The judgment is affirmed.
SHINN, Justice pro tem.
We concur: HOUSER, P. J.; YORK, J.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: Civ. 9417.
Decided: November 01, 1935
Court: District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)