Estate of Heaton

California Supreme Court

Estate of Heaton

73 P. 186, 139 Cal. 237, 1903 Cal. LEXIS 808

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJune 5, 1903

DocketS.F. No. 3505.

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 73 P. 186 (Estate of Heaton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Estate of Heaton, 73 P. 186, 139 Cal. 237, 1903 Cal. LEXIS 808 (Cal. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

BEATTY, C. J.

This is a motion to dismiss an appeal. The order appealed from settled the account of a special administrator as presented, and directed him to pay the balance in his hands to another person described as special administrator. The former appeals, and the latter moves to dismiss his appeal upon the ground that he is not a party aggrieved. (Code Civ. Proe., sec. 938.) But if the order is erroneous he is aggrieved, for it runs against him, is enforceable against him, and commands him to pay money to a person who is not entitled to receive it. To determine that he is not aggrieved is therefore to determine the merits of the appeal. This cannot be done without a hearing upon the merits and an examination of the record, and it is the settled practice of the court not to decide whether an order or judgment is or is not erroneous on a motion to dismiss.

The cases called to our attention are not in conflict with this view. In Rankin v. Central Pacific R. R. Co., 73 Cal. 96, the court did not inquire into the correctness of the order appealed from. It simply decided that, whether right or wrong, the party attempting to appeal was not affected by it. Here the appellant is affected by it. It compels him to pay over money. In Estate of McDermott, 127 Cal. 450, the appeal was dismissed without reference to the correctness of the order appealed from, because the person attempting to *239 appeal, although indirectly affected by the order, was not a party on the record. Here he is a party on the record, and, as above stated, his appeal cannot be dismissed, unless we decide on the merits that there is no error disclosed by the record.

Motion denied.

McFarland, J., Angellotti, J., Van Dyke, J., Shaw, J., and Lorigan, J., concurred.

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

BEATTY, C. J.

This is a motion to dismiss an appeal. The order appealed from settled the account of a special administrator as presented, and directed him to pay the balance in his hands to another person described as special administrator. The former appeals, and the latter moves to dismiss his appeal upon the ground that he is not a party aggrieved. (Code Civ. Proe., sec. 938.) But if the order is erroneous he is aggrieved, for it runs against him, is enforceable against him, and commands him to pay money to a person who is not entitled to receive it. To determine that he is not aggrieved is therefore to determine the merits of the appeal. This cannot be done without a hearing upon the merits and an examination of the record, and it is the settled practice of the court not to decide whether an order or judgment is or is not erroneous on a motion to dismiss.

The cases called to our attention are not in conflict with this view. In Rankin v. Central Pacific R. R. Co., 73 Cal. 96, the court did not inquire into the correctness of the order appealed from. It simply decided that, whether right or wrong, the party attempting to appeal was not affected by it. Here the appellant is affected by it. It compels him to pay over money. In Estate of McDermott, 127 Cal. 450, the appeal was dismissed without reference to the correctness of the order appealed from, because the person attempting to *239 appeal, although indirectly affected by the order, was not a party on the record. Here he is a party on the record, and, as above stated, his appeal cannot be dismissed, unless we decide on the merits that there is no error disclosed by the record.

Motion denied.

McFarland, J., Angellotti, J., Van Dyke, J., Shaw, J., and Lorigan, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 P. 186, 139 Cal. 237, 1903 Cal. LEXIS 808, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-heaton-cal-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack