Bloom v. Waxman

California Court of Appeal

Bloom v. Waxman

120 P.2d 509, 48 Cal. App. 2d 646, 1941 Cal. App. LEXIS 852

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedDecember 22, 1941

DocketCiv. 12704

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 120 P.2d 509 (Bloom v. Waxman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bloom v. Waxman, 120 P.2d 509, 48 Cal. App. 2d 646, 1941 Cal. App. LEXIS 852 (Cal. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

McCOMB, J.

May 17, 1937, plaintiff filed an action for declaratory relief in the superior court. September 2, 1937, Andre Witier was permitted to file a complaint in interven *647 tion. June 29, 1939, judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff in intervention against plaintiff Bloom and others. Plaintiff urges that the judgment should be reversed for the reason that the plaintiff in intervention (respondent) had no right to intervene in the action.

This is the sole question necessary for us to determine:

In the absence of an objection to the filing of a complaint in intervention, either by demurrer, motion to strike or other appropriate proceeding, may a party for the first time on appeal raise the objection that the order of the trial court permitting the intervention was improper?

This question must be answered in the negative. The law is established in California that in the absence of an objection in the trial court to an order permitting the filing of a complaint in intervention a party may not urge error in the mating of such order for the first time on appeal. (People v. Reis, 76 Cal. 269, 273 [18 Pac. 309] ; Smith v. Penny, 44 Cal. 161, 164; McKenty v. Gladwin, Hugg & Co., 10 Cal. 227, 228; County of Yuba v. Adams & Co., 7 Cal. 35; Carlin v. Masten, 118 Cal. App. 373, 375 [5 Pac. (2d) 65].) Since it appears from the record in the instant ease that plaintiff, after receiving notice of plaintiff in intervention’s (respondent’s) motion that he be permitted to intervene in the case, did not by motion or otherwise raise the objection in the trial court which he is now presenting in this court, the above rule is applicable and he is foreclosed from urging alleged error of the trial court in permitting the complaint in intervention to be filed.

For the foregoing reasons the judgment is affirmed.

Moore, P. J., and Wood (W. J.), J., concurred.

Appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied February 19, 1942.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

McCOMB, J.

May 17, 1937, plaintiff filed an action for declaratory relief in the superior court. September 2, 1937, Andre Witier was permitted to file a complaint in interven *647 tion. June 29, 1939, judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff in intervention against plaintiff Bloom and others. Plaintiff urges that the judgment should be reversed for the reason that the plaintiff in intervention (respondent) had no right to intervene in the action.

This is the sole question necessary for us to determine:

In the absence of an objection to the filing of a complaint in intervention, either by demurrer, motion to strike or other appropriate proceeding, may a party for the first time on appeal raise the objection that the order of the trial court permitting the intervention was improper?

This question must be answered in the negative. The law is established in California that in the absence of an objection in the trial court to an order permitting the filing of a complaint in intervention a party may not urge error in the mating of such order for the first time on appeal. (People v. Reis, 76 Cal. 269, 273 [18 Pac. 309] ; Smith v. Penny, 44 Cal. 161, 164; McKenty v. Gladwin, Hugg & Co., 10 Cal. 227, 228; County of Yuba v. Adams & Co., 7 Cal. 35; Carlin v. Masten, 118 Cal. App. 373, 375 [5 Pac. (2d) 65].) Since it appears from the record in the instant ease that plaintiff, after receiving notice of plaintiff in intervention’s (respondent’s) motion that he be permitted to intervene in the case, did not by motion or otherwise raise the objection in the trial court which he is now presenting in this court, the above rule is applicable and he is foreclosed from urging alleged error of the trial court in permitting the complaint in intervention to be filed.

For the foregoing reasons the judgment is affirmed.

Moore, P. J., and Wood (W. J.), J., concurred.

Appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied February 19, 1942.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 P.2d 509, 48 Cal. App. 2d 646, 1941 Cal. App. LEXIS 852, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bloom-v-waxman-calctapp-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack