Estate of Murphy

California Supreme Court

Estate of Murphy

60 P. 930, 128 Cal. 339, 1900 Cal. LEXIS 599

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedApril 5, 1900

DocketS.F. No. 2218.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 60 P. 930 (Estate of Murphy) 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 Murphy, 60 P. 930, 128 Cal. 339, 1900 Cal. LEXIS 599 (Cal. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

This is a motion to dismiss an appeal taken by certain interested parties from the order of court vacating the decree of final distribution theretofore granted in the matter of the estate of Lawrence Murphy, deceased, upon the ground that the order of vacation is not an appealable order.

That such an order is not an appealable order was decided by this court in Estate of Calahan, 60 Cal. 232. That decision has remained unquestioned and unchallenged for eighteen years. It has been consistently upheld by this court whenever the question has arisen. (Estate of Dean, 62 Cal. 613; Lutz v. Christy, 67 Cal. 457; Estate of Cahalan, 70 Cal. 604; In re Wiard, 83 Cal. 619; Inre Bauquier, 88 Cal. 302-13; In re Walkerly, 94 Cal. 352; In reSmith, 98 Cal. 636; Iversen v. Superior Court, 115 Cal. 28;Estate of Wittmeier, 118 Cal. 255; Estate of Hickey, 121 Cal. 378. ) We are satisfied with the reasoning of these cases and the conclusions there expressed.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

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

This is a motion to dismiss an appeal taken by certain interested parties from the order of court vacating the decree of final distribution theretofore granted in the matter of the estate of Lawrence Murphy, deceased, upon the ground that the order of vacation is not an appealable order.

That such an order is not an appealable order was decided by this court in Estate of Calahan, 60 Cal. 232. That decision has remained unquestioned and unchallenged for eighteen years. It has been consistently upheld by this court whenever the question has arisen. (Estate of Dean, 62 Cal. 613; Lutz v. Christy, 67 Cal. 457; Estate of Cahalan, 70 Cal. 604; In re Wiard, 83 Cal. 619; Inre Bauquier, 88 Cal. 302-13; In re Walkerly, 94 Cal. 352; In reSmith, 98 Cal. 636; Iversen v. Superior Court, 115 Cal. 28;Estate of Wittmeier, 118 Cal. 255; Estate of Hickey, 121 Cal. 378. ) We are satisfied with the reasoning of these cases and the conclusions there expressed.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 P. 930, 128 Cal. 339, 1900 Cal. LEXIS 599, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-murphy-cal-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack