122 P.2d 892 (Cal. 1942)
In June 1933, Mrs. Clara Sather, an elderly woman, made her home with Mr. and Mrs. Charles O. Cook in San Dimas, California.1 Because of her failing health, she authorized Mr. Cook and Dr. Joseph Zeiler to make drafts jointly against her commercial account in the Security First National Bank of Los Angeles.2 On August 24, 1933, Mr. Cook opened a commercial account at the First National Bank of San Dimas in the name of "Clara Sather by Charles O. Cook."3 No authorization for this account was ever given to the bank by Mrs. Sather.4
Thereafter, checks drawn by Cook and Zeiler on Mrs. Sather's commercial account in Los Angeles were deposited in the San Dimas account.5 Checks were drawn upon that account signed "Clara Sather by Charles O. Cook" to meet expenses of Mrs. Sather.6 On October 26, 1933, a teller from the Los Angeles Bank called on Mrs. Sather at her request to assist in transferring her money from the Los Angeles Bank to the San Dimas Bank.7 In the presence of this teller, the cashier of the San Dimas Bank, Mr. Cook, and her physician, Mrs. Sather signed by mark an authorization directing the Security First National Bank of Los Angeles to transfer the balance of her savings account in the amount of $4,155.68 to the First National Bank of San Dimas.8 She also signed an order for this amount on the Security First National Bank of San Dimas "for credit to the account of Mrs. Clara Sather."9 The order was credited by the San Dimas Bank to the account of "Clara Sather by Charles O. Cook."10
Cook withdrew the entire balance from that account and opened a new account in the same bank in the name of himself and his wife.11 He subsequently withdrew the funds from this last mentioned account and deposited them in a Los Angeles Bank in the names of himself and his wife.12 Mrs. Sather died in November 1933.13 Cook qualified as executor of the estate and proceeded with its administration.14 After a lapse of several years he filed an account at the instance of the probate court accompanied by his resignation.15 The account made no mention of the money transferred by Mrs. Sather to the San Dimas Bank.16
Helen Bernhard, Beaulah Bernhard, Hester Burton, and Iva LeDoux, beneficiaries under Mrs. Sather's will, filed objections to the account for this reason.17 After a hearing on the objections the court settled the account, and as part of its order declared that the decedent during her lifetime had made a gift to Charles O. Cook of the amount of the deposit in question.18 After Cook's discharge, Helen Bernhard was appointed administratrix with the will annexed.19 She instituted this action against defendant, the Bank of America, successor to the San Dimas Bank, seeking to recover the deposit on the ground that the bank was indebted to the estate for this amount because Mrs. Sather never authorized its withdrawal.20 In addition to a general denial, defendant pleaded that the money on deposit was paid out to Charles O. Cook with the consent of Mrs. Sather.21 Defendant also pleaded that this fact is res judicata by virtue of the finding of the probate court in the proceeding to settle Cook's account that Mrs. Sather made a gift of the money in question to Charles O. Cook and "owned no sums of money whatsoever" at the time of her death.22 Plaintiff demurred to both these defenses and objected to the introduction in evidence of the record of the earlier proceeding to support the plea of res judicata.23 The trial court overruled the demurrers and objection to the evidence and gave judgment for defendant on the ground that Cook's ownership of the money was conclusively established by the finding of the probate court.24 Plaintiff has appealed.25
Whether the issue decided in the prior probate adjudication was identical with the one presented in the present action?26
The doctrine of res judicata precludes parties or their privies from relitigating a cause of action that has been finally determined by a court of competent jurisdiction.27 Any issue necessarily decided in such litigation is conclusively determined as to the parties or their privies if it is involved in a subsequent lawsuit on a different cause of action.28
Yes. The issue decided in the prior probate adjudication is identical with the one presented in the present action.29 Both proceedings center on whether Mrs. Sather made a valid gift of the $4,155.68 deposit to Charles O. Cook during her lifetime.30
The probate court expressly found that the decedent had made such a gift of the amount in question when it settled the executor's account.31 The current suit by the administratrix seeks recovery of the same funds on the theory that Mrs. Sather never authorized withdrawal by Cook from the San Dimas account.32
The issues presented are identical.33
Whether there was a final judgment on the merits in the probate proceeding?34
The order of the probate court settling the executor's account was a final adjudication of this issue on the merits.35
Yes. There was a final judgment on the merits in the probate proceeding.36 After the beneficiaries filed objections to the executor's account, the probate court held a hearing and settled the account.37 As part of its order, the court declared that the decedent during her lifetime had made a gift to Charles O. Cook of the amount of the deposit in question.38
Under Prob. Code § 931, the order settling the executor's account constitutes a final adjudication on the merits of the ownership issue.39
There was a final judgment on the merits.40
Whether the plaintiff was a party or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication?41
The plaintiff has brought the present action in the capacity of administratrix of the estate.42 In this capacity she represents the very same persons and interests that were represented in the earlier hearing on the executor's account.43 The plea of res judicata is therefore available against plaintiff as a party to the former proceeding, despite her formal change of capacity.44
Yes. Plaintiff and the other legatees who objected to the executor's account represented the estate of the decedent in the prior proceeding.45 They were seeking not a personal recovery but a recovery for the benefit of the legatees and creditors of the estate, all of whom were bound by the order settling the account.46 The plaintiff has brought the present action in the capacity of administratrix of the estate.
In this capacity she represents the very same persons and interests that were represented in the earlier hearing on the executor's account.
The plaintiff was a party or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication.47