Wiseman v. Sklar

California Court of Appeal

Wiseman v. Sklar

274 P. 764, 96 Cal. App. 610, 1929 Cal. App. LEXIS 927

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedFebruary 4, 1929

DocketDocket No. 5770.

StatusPublished

This text of 274 P. 764 (Wiseman v. Sklar) 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

Wiseman v. Sklar, 274 P. 764, 96 Cal. App. 610, 1929 Cal. App. LEXIS 927 (Cal. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

[1] Motion by respondent (who was one of the plaintiffs in the lower court) to dismiss appeal taken by one of the appellants (who also was a plaintiff in the lower court) on the ground that said appellant, having assigned his interest in the judgment to the respondent, is no longer interested in the result of the appeal. However, since it appears that the assignment in question was not made by such appellant personally and voluntarily, but that in consequence of an order of the trial court such assignment was made in behalf of said appellant by the clerk of the court; and since the outcome of the appeal is uncertain, it is clear that said appellant, notwithstanding his involuntary assignment of the judgment, may still be pecuniarily interested in the litigation.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.

York, J., and Crail, J., pro tem., concurred.

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

[1] Motion by respondent (who was one of the plaintiffs in the lower court) to dismiss appeal taken by one of the appellants (who also was a plaintiff in the lower court) on the ground that said appellant, having assigned his interest in the judgment to the respondent, is no longer interested in the result of the appeal. However, since it appears that the assignment in question was not made by such appellant personally and voluntarily, but that in consequence of an order of the trial court such assignment was made in behalf of said appellant by the clerk of the court; and since the outcome of the appeal is uncertain, it is clear that said appellant, notwithstanding his involuntary assignment of the judgment, may still be pecuniarily interested in the litigation.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.

York, J., and Crail, J., pro tem., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

274 P. 764, 96 Cal. App. 610, 1929 Cal. App. LEXIS 927, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wiseman-v-sklar-calctapp-1929.