Miller v. Thomas

California Supreme Court

Miller v. Thomas

15 P. 55, 73 Cal. 437, 1887 Cal. LEXIS 693

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 24, 1887

DocketNo. 9933

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 15 P. 55 (Miller v. Thomas) 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

Miller v. Thomas, 15 P. 55, 73 Cal. 437, 1887 Cal. LEXIS 693 (Cal. 1887).

Pincite

Opinion

The Court.

— A motion was made to dismiss the appeal herein, which was denied. In deciding the motion, this court said: “ So far as appears to us from the transcript, the judgment might be modified, if necessary or proper, without affecting the right of any party not [438]*438served ” with notice of appeal. “ If, however, it should appear on the final hearing that the necessary parties are not before the court on this appeal, the appeal will be held ineffectual.” (71 Cal. 406.) The cause has since been argued, and upon full examination of the record in the light of the argument, we are of opinion that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, for the reason that there can be no just or appropriate modification of the portions of the interlocutory judgment appealed from, without disturbing the whole judgment, and prejudicially affecting the rights of parties not served with notice of this appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

Thornton, J., did not participate in the decision. McKinstry, J., dissented.

Rehearing denied.

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

The Court.

— A motion was made to dismiss the appeal herein, which was denied. In deciding the motion, this court said: “ So far as appears to us from the transcript, the judgment might be modified, if necessary or proper, without affecting the right of any party not [438]*438served ” with notice of appeal. “ If, however, it should appear on the final hearing that the necessary parties are not before the court on this appeal, the appeal will be held ineffectual.” (71 Cal. 406.) The cause has since been argued, and upon full examination of the record in the light of the argument, we are of opinion that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, for the reason that there can be no just or appropriate modification of the portions of the interlocutory judgment appealed from, without disturbing the whole judgment, and prejudicially affecting the rights of parties not served with notice of this appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

Thornton, J., did not participate in the decision. McKinstry, J., dissented.

Rehearing denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 P. 55, 73 Cal. 437, 1887 Cal. LEXIS 693, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-thomas-cal-1887.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack