Summary
In Blum v. Brownstone, 50 Cal. 293, it was decided that where [4 P. 688] the legislature had enumerated the orders of the Probate Court, from which an appeal might be taken, no direct appeal from any other probate order will be entertained, and in Sacramento v. Harlan, 24 Cal. 334, that a writ of error does not lie when an appeal has been given by statute.
Summary of this case from People v. JordanOpinion
Appeal from the Probate Court, County of Santa Cruz.
Blum was the guardian of the heirs of the estate of Nicholas Valencia, deceased. As such, he had in his hands money belonging to the heirs. Brownstone Brothers presented an account to him against certain of the heirs, which he refused to allow, but agreed to submit to the Probate Court the question whether they should be paid. The court made an order that he pay the accounts, and upon this order an execution was issued. He moved to quash it, but the court denied the motion, and he appealed from the order.
COUNSEL
The order is not one of the Probate Court orders mentioned in section 969 of the code, from which an appeal may be taken (Johnson's Estate v. Tyson , 45 Cal. 257), nor is it one of the special orders made after final judgment, mentioned in the third subdivision of section 939. Even if that section applies to appeals from Probate Court, it cannot be construed as allowing an appeal in cases not provided for in section 969. (Peralta v. Castro , 15 Cal. 511.)
C.B. Younger, for the motion to dismiss the appeal.
R. Thompson and A. Heath, contra.
OPINION By the Court:
An appeal to this Court is a procedure regulated by the provisions of the statute. The subjects of appeal from the Probate Court to this Court, are enumerated in section 969 of the Code of Civil Procedure. An order entered in the Probate Court refusing to quash an execution is not one of these, and the appeal attempted here, therefore, cannot be supported.
Appeal dismissed.