Dunham v. Weisenberger

California Court of Appeal

Dunham v. Weisenberger

206 P.2d 406, 92 Cal. App. 2d 162, 1949 Cal. App. LEXIS 1665

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJune 2, 1949

DocketCiv. 13991

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 206 P.2d 406 (Dunham v. Weisenberger) 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

Dunham v. Weisenberger, 206 P.2d 406, 92 Cal. App. 2d 162, 1949 Cal. App. LEXIS 1665 (Cal. Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

NOURSE, P. J.

The appeal is from an order made in probate denying a motion made under section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure to amend an order confirming a sale of real estate. The motion was based upon the ground that the portion of the order directing the administratrix to pay a commission on the sale to a real estate broker was inadvertently made because valuable services had not been rendered by him.

Section 1240 of the Probate Code permits an appeal from an order in probate directing a sale or confirming a sale of property of an estate. No provision is found for an appeal from an order denying an amendment to or the vacation of an order of confirmance. In Estate of O’Dea, 15 Cal.2d 637 [104 P.2d 368], the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal from an order denying appellants’ motion under section 473 to be relieved from their default for failure to appear. The court held that since the motion was not one mentioned in section 1240 of the Probate Code, an appeal would not Re. The rule was followed and other” authorities were cited in Estate of Brady, 32 Cal.2d 478 [196 P.2d 881].

Appeal dismissed.

Goodell, J., and Dooling, J., concurred.

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

NOURSE, P. J.

The appeal is from an order made in probate denying a motion made under section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure to amend an order confirming a sale of real estate. The motion was based upon the ground that the portion of the order directing the administratrix to pay a commission on the sale to a real estate broker was inadvertently made because valuable services had not been rendered by him.

Section 1240 of the Probate Code permits an appeal from an order in probate directing a sale or confirming a sale of property of an estate. No provision is found for an appeal from an order denying an amendment to or the vacation of an order of confirmance. In Estate of O’Dea, 15 Cal.2d 637 [104 P.2d 368], the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal from an order denying appellants’ motion under section 473 to be relieved from their default for failure to appear. The court held that since the motion was not one mentioned in section 1240 of the Probate Code, an appeal would not Re. The rule was followed and other” authorities were cited in Estate of Brady, 32 Cal.2d 478 [196 P.2d 881].

Appeal dismissed.

Goodell, J., and Dooling, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

206 P.2d 406, 92 Cal. App. 2d 162, 1949 Cal. App. LEXIS 1665, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dunham-v-weisenberger-calctapp-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack