From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Estate of Wiard

Supreme Court of California
Apr 30, 1890
83 Cal. 619 (Cal. 1890)

Opinion

         Motion to dismiss an appeal from a decree of the Superior Court of Alameda County.

         COUNSEL:

         C. M. Jennings, for Appellant.

          J. H. Smith, for Respondent.


         JUDGES: In Bank. Fox, J. Sharpstein, J., McFarland, J., Paterson, J., and Thornton, J., concurred.

         OPINION

          FOX, Judge

         Appeal from a decree of final distribution, and from an order subsequently made denying an application or motion to vacate and set aside said decree, and for a new trial.

         The decree was rendered, filed, and entered March 12, 1888. An appeal from such a decree may be taken to the supreme court (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 963, subd. 3), and the general provisions of part 2 (of which said section is a part), relative to appeals, are applicable, except so far as they are inconsistent [24 P. 46] with the provisions of title 11, part 3, Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1714. Appeals from orders and decrees in probate proceedings are governed by chapter 12, title 11, of part 3. Section 1715, found in that chapter, provides that the appeal must be taken within sixty days after the order, decree, or judgment is entered. This appeal was not taken until December 22, 1888. The appeal from the decree must therefore be dismissed.          Subdivision 3 of section 963, Code of Civil Procedure, enumerates all the cases in which an appeal may be taken to this court from the superior court in probate proceedings and an order refusing to vacate a decree of distribution and settlement of final account is not one of them. (Estate of Calahan , 60 Cal. 232; Estate of Lutz , 67 Cal. 457. See also Blum v. Brownstone , 50 Cal. 293; Estate of Dean , 62 Cal. 613.)

         Counsel has not made the point that the order refusing to vacate the decree is not appealable, but we cannot ignore the plain provisions of the statute, particularly after attention has been frequently called to them, because counsel has overlooked the point. The policy of the law is to facilitate, and not to delay, the settlement of the estates of deceased persons. The law gives a direct appeal from the decree, if taken in time, but it gives no appeal from an order of the court below refusing to vacate that decree, which is made only after several months of delay.

         Appeal dismissed.


Summaries of

In re Estate of Wiard

Supreme Court of California
Apr 30, 1890
83 Cal. 619 (Cal. 1890)
Case details for

In re Estate of Wiard

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Estate of MARY JANE WIARD, Deceased

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Apr 30, 1890

Citations

83 Cal. 619 (Cal. 1890)
24 P. 45

Citing Cases

In re Seymour

Therefore, any order in probate proceedings that does not come within any of the cases enumerated in…

Guardianship of Lyle

[3] Where an appeal is made from a nonappealable order, the appeal may be dismissed by the appellate court on…