presentment claim in California

1888The later decisions of this court are to the effect that such an allegation is sufficient to withstand a general demurrer (Hentsch v. Porter, 10 Cal. 555 ; Coleman v. Woodworth, 28 Cal. 567 ; Bank of Stockton v. Howland, 42 Cal. 129 ; Chase v. Evoy, 58 Cal. 348 ); and the correctness of the earlier case of Ellissen v. Halleck’s Ex’rs, 6 Cal. 386 , holding to the contrary, is doubted.

1865The second point, to the effect that no proof was made of the presentment of the claim to the defendants for their allowance or rejection, as provided in the one.hundred and thirty-eighth section of the Act to regulate the settlement of the estates of deceased persons, is answered by the case of Hentsch v. Porter, 10 Cal. 555 , where it was held that the objection in question must be made in the Court below, and cannot be made for the first time in this Court.

2020First, Edelweiss argues that where there is a conflict between a seal imposed pursuant to the CFCA and the general requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure for prompt service, the “CFCA’s sealing provision takes precedence.” Edelweiss attempts to support this proposition with Wells, supra, 39 Cal.4th 1164 , which holds that a case brought under the CFCA is not subject to the prior presentment requirement of the Tort Claims Act (Gov.

2020First, Edelweiss argues that where there is a conflict between a seal imposed pursuant to the CFCA and the general requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure for prompt service, the “CFCA’s sealing provision takes precedence.” Edelweiss attempts to support this proposition with Wells, supra, 39 Cal.4th 1164 , which holds that a case brought under the CFCA is not subject to the prior presentment requirement of the Tort Claims Act (Gov.

1968A. Thompson & Sons, Inc. v. Superior Court (1963) 215 Cal.App.2d 719, 721, fn. 2 [ 30 Cal.Rptr. 471 ]. 6 See footnote 1, supra. 7 Similar considerations do not apply to the widow’s claim against the City of Vallejo, because under Government Code, section 710 the only condition precedent to suit is the presentment of a claim.

1893In Wise v. Hogan, 77 Cal. 184 , the complaint alleged a presentation of the claim “ within ten months next following and succeeding the first publication of notice to creditors.” It was claimed in that case that the complaint stated no cause of action, inasmuch as the notice may have required the presentation of claims within four months; but the court held that such objection could not be raised by general demurrer, and said: “Although defectively stated, there is an allegation of the presentment of the claim,” and cited several cases in support of that proposition.

1888The later decisions of this court are to the effect that such an allegation is sufficient to withstand a general demurrer (Hentsch v. Porter, 10 Cal. 555 ; Coleman v. Woodworth, 28 Cal. 567 ; Bank of Stockton v. Howland, 42 Cal. 129 ; Chase v. Evoy, 58 Cal. 348 ); and the correctness of the earlier case of Ellissen v. Halleck’s Ex’rs, 6 Cal. 386 , holding to the contrary, is doubted.

1888The later decisions of this court are to the effect that such an allegation is sufficient to withstand a general demurrer (Hentsch v. Porter, 10 Cal. 555 ; Coleman v. Woodworth, 28 Cal. 567 ; Bank of Stockton v. Howland, 42 Cal. 129 ; Chase v. Evoy, 58 Cal. 348 ); and the correctness of the earlier case of Ellissen v. Halleck’s Ex’rs, 6 Cal. 386 , holding to the contrary, is doubted.

1888The later decisions of this court are to the effect that such an allegation is sufficient to withstand a general demurrer (Hentsch v. Porter, 10 Cal. 555 ; Coleman v. Woodworth, 28 Cal. 567 ; Bank of Stockton v. Howland, 42 Cal. 129 ; Chase v. Evoy, 58 Cal. 348 ); and the correctness of the earlier case of Ellissen v. Halleck’s Ex’rs, 6 Cal. 386 , holding to the contrary, is doubted.

1888The later decisions of this court are to the effect that such an allegation is sufficient to withstand a general demurrer (Hentsch v. Porter, 10 Cal. 555 ; Coleman v. Woodworth, 28 Cal. 567 ; Bank of Stockton v. Howland, 42 Cal. 129 ; Chase v. Evoy, 58 Cal. 348 ); and the correctness of the earlier case of Ellissen v. Halleck’s Ex’rs, 6 Cal. 386 , holding to the contrary, is doubted.