## Facts

- Sara M. Boyd died testate in June 1937, leaving an estate of about $225,000.
- Her will was admitted to probate in the San Francisco Superior Court, and the Bank of California, National Association was appointed executor.
- The will provided numerous specific legacies totaling about $60,000 to many individuals and charities, and left the residue to St. Luke’s Hospital.
- In October 1937, Bertha M. Smedley (a niece and legatee) filed a civil action alleging Boyd had contracted to leave Smedley the entire estate.
- Smedley sued the executor and all named beneficiaries, seeking a decree that she owned the estate after debts and expenses, quiet title, and orders compelling conveyances.
- Only the executor bank and St. Luke’s Hospital were served with process; the other named legatees were neither served nor appeared.
- When the case was called for trial in November 1939, the bank and St. Luke’s moved under California Code of Civil Procedure § 389 to require issuance and service of summons on the unserved legatees, arguing they were necessary and indispensable parties.
- The trial court denied the motion and intended to proceed to trial without the absent legatees.

## Issues

1. Whether the unserved legatees were indispensable parties under California Code of Civil Procedure § 389, such that the superior court lacked power to proceed without them.
2. Whether a writ of prohibition should issue to stop the trial court from proceeding in the absence of the unserved legatees.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of prohibition.
- The Court held the unserved legatees were not indispensable parties whose absence deprived the superior court of power to proceed.
- The superior court could adjudicate the controversy between Smedley and the served defendants (the executor and the residuary beneficiary) without necessarily determining the absent legatees’ rights.
- Because the trial court was not acting in excess of its jurisdiction, prohibition was not available.

## Legal Principles

- A party is “indispensable” only when the court cannot render an effective judgment between those before it without necessarily adjudicating or destroying the absent party’s rights.
- Having an interest that may be practically affected by the outcome does not, by itself, make an absent person indispensable.
- Nonjoinder of parties who may be proper or even “necessary” for complete relief does not defeat jurisdiction if the absent parties’ interests are separable and the case can proceed between the parties before the court.
- California Code of Civil Procedure § 389 authorizes joinder of needed parties, but it does not require dismissal or bar proceeding in every case where interested persons are not joined.
- Prohibition is an extraordinary remedy limited to restraining lower courts from acting without or in excess of jurisdiction; it does not lie merely to prevent litigation that might be inefficient or lead to later disputes.

## Conclusion

The court refused to halt the trial because the absent legatees’ interests, though potentially affected, were not necessarily adjudicated by resolving Smedley’s contract claim against the executor and the residuary beneficiary; therefore, the superior court retained jurisdiction to proceed, and prohibition was denied.


Bank of California, Nat'l Ass'n v. Superior Court, 16 Cal. 2d 516, 106 P.2d 879 (Cal. 1940)