Schwartz v. Schwartz

California Court of Appeal

Schwartz v. Schwartz

5 Cal. App. 3d 141, 85 Cal. Rptr. 49, 1970 Cal. App. LEXIS 1424

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedMarch 9, 1970

DocketCiv. 34556

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 5 Cal. App. 3d 141 (Schwartz v. Schwartz) 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

Schwartz v. Schwartz, 5 Cal. App. 3d 141, 85 Cal. Rptr. 49, 1970 Cal. App. LEXIS 1424 (Cal. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

JEFFERSON, Acting P. J.

This appeal is a companion to the appeal of Fred Schwartz in Schwartz v. Schwartz, 2d Civil No. 33989 [ante, p. 133; 85 Cal.Rptr. 45], filed concurrently with this opinion, Here Fred Schwartz appeals from an order of the superior court made on May 6, 1968, in department 65 of that court, denying his motion “to have Court, pursuant to Order of April 1, 1960 appointing and instructing R. E. Allen as Receiver for Central Tire and Salvage Company to defend or prosecute all litigation for or against partnership, order and instruct R. E. Allen, to oppose and defend motion by Lawrence L. Light, Esq., seeking obtainment of $3,851.64 less advances and credits from partnership estate, as attorney’s fees, . . .”

By his motion, Mr. Schwartz sought an order instructing a receiver. Under the rationale of the court in Title Ins. & Trust Co. v. California Dev. Co., 159 Cal. 484, 492-493 [114 P. 838], an order denying a motion to instruct a receiver may not be considered as a final determination of a matter pending in the trial court. Rather, such an order must be regarded as an intermediate ruling, the propriety of which may be considered on an appeal from the final account of the receiver, The order in question is thus nonappealable. (See our opinion in Schwartz v. Schwartz, 2d Civ. *143 No. 33989 [ante, p. 133 ], filed concurrently herewith.)

The .appeal is dismissed.

Kingsley, J., and Dunn, J., concurred.

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

Opinion

JEFFERSON, Acting P. J.

This appeal is a companion to the appeal of Fred Schwartz in Schwartz v. Schwartz, 2d Civil No. 33989 [ante, p. 133; 85 Cal.Rptr. 45], filed concurrently with this opinion, Here Fred Schwartz appeals from an order of the superior court made on May 6, 1968, in department 65 of that court, denying his motion “to have Court, pursuant to Order of April 1, 1960 appointing and instructing R. E. Allen as Receiver for Central Tire and Salvage Company to defend or prosecute all litigation for or against partnership, order and instruct R. E. Allen, to oppose and defend motion by Lawrence L. Light, Esq., seeking obtainment of $3,851.64 less advances and credits from partnership estate, as attorney’s fees, . . .”

By his motion, Mr. Schwartz sought an order instructing a receiver. Under the rationale of the court in Title Ins. & Trust Co. v. California Dev. Co., 159 Cal. 484, 492-493 [114 P. 838], an order denying a motion to instruct a receiver may not be considered as a final determination of a matter pending in the trial court. Rather, such an order must be regarded as an intermediate ruling, the propriety of which may be considered on an appeal from the final account of the receiver, The order in question is thus nonappealable. (See our opinion in Schwartz v. Schwartz, 2d Civ. *143 No. 33989 [ante, p. 133 ], filed concurrently herewith.)

The .appeal is dismissed.

Kingsley, J., and Dunn, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Cal. App. 3d 141, 85 Cal. Rptr. 49, 1970 Cal. App. LEXIS 1424, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schwartz-v-schwartz-calctapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack