In Re Estate of Funkenstein

California Supreme Court

In Re Estate of Funkenstein

150 P. 987, 170 Cal. 594, 1915 Cal. LEXIS 439

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 22, 1915

DocketS.F. No. 7342.

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 150 P. 987 (In Re Estate of Funkenstein) 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

In Re Estate of Funkenstein, 150 P. 987, 170 Cal. 594, 1915 Cal. LEXIS 439 (Cal. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

At the close of the argument Shaw, J., delivered the opinion of the court, Sloss, J., and Lawlor, J., concurring.

The motion to dismiss will be granted.

Arturo Wolf applied for letters of administration on the estate of Tobe Funkenstein. His petition states two essential facts: 1. That he is a resident of the city and county of San Francisco, state of California; 2. That he is an heir at law of the deceased, that is to say, a grandson. The contestants denied that he was a resident of California, or a grandson or heir of the deceased Tobe Funkenstein. The court made its findings on these issues, one that Arturo Wolf was a grandson of the deceased and an heir at law, the other that he was not a resident of this state, but was a resident of Guatemala, Central America. Following these findings was a conclusion of law that he was not entitled to administration. Thereupon a formal order was made denying his petition for letters of administration.

The contestants appealed generally from the order denying his petition and specifically from that part of the findings which declared that he was a grandson and heir of Tobe Funkenstein.

So far as the appeal from the order denying his petition is concerned, the appeal must be dismissed because that order was in favor of the appellants here and they are not aggrieved by an order made in their favor.

The appeal from the portion of the findings declaring that Arturo Wolf was an heir at law of decedent is dismissed for two reasons; the first reason is that the fact that he was an heir at law of the decedent was not essential to support the order made by the court. So far as it went it tended to support an order granting him letters. The order denying letters was not based on that finding, but was necessarily based upon the finding that he was not a resident of California, and was a resident of Guatemala, Central America. Otherwise the order should have been to the contrary. It is pretty well settled in this state and elsewhere that where a finding is con *596 trary to a judgment or order rendered, or immaterial to it, and the judgment or order is based upon other findings, that do support it, the findings contrary or immaterial are not adjudications against the party who prevails. The following cases establish this proposition: Fulton v. Hanlow, 20 Cal. 483; Lillis v. Emigrant Ditch Co., 95 Cal. 559, [30 Pac. 1108]; Chapman v. Hughes, 134 Cal. 654, [58 Pac. 298, 60 Pac. 974, 66 Pac. 982]; Collins v. Gray, 154 Cal. 135, [97 Pac. 142] ; Lance v. Shaughnessy, 86 Hun, 411, [33 N. Y. Supp. 515] ; 1 Freeman on Judgments, sec. 271. Therefore, even if the appeal would lie from a finding, the appellants are not aggrieved. The second reason is that appeals lie in probate eases only when given by statute and no statute allows an appeal from a finding. The appeal lies only from the order denying the letters. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 963.)

For these reasons the motion to dismiss the appeal is granted and the appeal is dismissed.

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

At the close of the argument Shaw, J., delivered the opinion of the court, Sloss, J., and Lawlor, J., concurring.

The motion to dismiss will be granted.

Arturo Wolf applied for letters of administration on the estate of Tobe Funkenstein. His petition states two essential facts: 1. That he is a resident of the city and county of San Francisco, state of California; 2. That he is an heir at law of the deceased, that is to say, a grandson. The contestants denied that he was a resident of California, or a grandson or heir of the deceased Tobe Funkenstein. The court made its findings on these issues, one that Arturo Wolf was a grandson of the deceased and an heir at law, the other that he was not a resident of this state, but was a resident of Guatemala, Central America. Following these findings was a conclusion of law that he was not entitled to administration. Thereupon a formal order was made denying his petition for letters of administration.

The contestants appealed generally from the order denying his petition and specifically from that part of the findings which declared that he was a grandson and heir of Tobe Funkenstein.

So far as the appeal from the order denying his petition is concerned, the appeal must be dismissed because that order was in favor of the appellants here and they are not aggrieved by an order made in their favor.

The appeal from the portion of the findings declaring that Arturo Wolf was an heir at law of decedent is dismissed for two reasons; the first reason is that the fact that he was an heir at law of the decedent was not essential to support the order made by the court. So far as it went it tended to support an order granting him letters. The order denying letters was not based on that finding, but was necessarily based upon the finding that he was not a resident of California, and was a resident of Guatemala, Central America. Otherwise the order should have been to the contrary. It is pretty well settled in this state and elsewhere that where a finding is con *596 trary to a judgment or order rendered, or immaterial to it, and the judgment or order is based upon other findings, that do support it, the findings contrary or immaterial are not adjudications against the party who prevails. The following cases establish this proposition: Fulton v. Hanlow, 20 Cal. 483; Lillis v. Emigrant Ditch Co., 95 Cal. 559, [30 Pac. 1108]; Chapman v. Hughes, 134 Cal. 654, [58 Pac. 298, 60 Pac. 974, 66 Pac. 982]; Collins v. Gray, 154 Cal. 135, [97 Pac. 142] ; Lance v. Shaughnessy, 86 Hun, 411, [33 N. Y. Supp. 515] ; 1 Freeman on Judgments, sec. 271. Therefore, even if the appeal would lie from a finding, the appellants are not aggrieved. The second reason is that appeals lie in probate eases only when given by statute and no statute allows an appeal from a finding. The appeal lies only from the order denying the letters. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 963.)

For these reasons the motion to dismiss the appeal is granted and the appeal is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 P. 987, 170 Cal. 594, 1915 Cal. LEXIS 439, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-estate-of-funkenstein-cal-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack