From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re De Leon’s Estate

Supreme Court of California
Dec 27, 1893
4 Cal. Unrep. 388 (Cal. 1893)

Opinion

          Department 2. Appeal from superior court, city and county of San Francisco; J. V. Coffey, Judge.

         Proceedings by Virginia Durstein to have allotted to her a share in the estate of Jose Francisco De Leon, deceased. Decree for plaintiff. The assignee of one of the distributees of said estate appeals. Dismissed.

          COUNSEL

          [4 Cal.Unrep. 389] T. M. Osmont, for appellant.

          Lloyd & Wood and L. D. McKisick, for respondent.


          OPINION

         FITZGERALD, J.

          The appeal in this case purports to be from a judgment upon the judgment roll with a bill of exceptions. There are so-called ‘findings and conclusions of law’ set out in the transcript, but they do not appear to have been signed by the judge or filed with the clerk; nor was there any judgment entered thereon, as required by sections 632, 633, of the Code of Civil Procedure. With the exception of a statement in the bill of exceptions that a ‘decree was rendered in favor of the petitioner as in said decree set forth,’ there is nothing in the record showing that any judgment was ever rendered by the court. This point was not made by counsel, either in their arguments or briefs, for the reason, perhaps, that they supposed that the judgment had been regularly entered upon the decision, and that, as the appeal had been taken upon the judgment roll, it was necessarily contained therein. If, however, it should be made to appear within the time allowed to file a petition for rehearing that the judgment was in fact entered upon the decision, but was inadvertently omitted from the transcript, then the judgment herein will be set aside, and counsel permitted, upon a suggestion of diminution of the record, to supply the omission. Appeal dismissed.

          We concur: DE HAVEN, J.; McFARLAND, J.

          (Jan. 26, 1894.)

          BY THE COURT.

          Ordered that the judgment heretofore rendered in this cause in December 27, 1893, be and the same is hereby vacated and set aside, and, upon stipulation of the parties filed herein, further ordered that the case stand submitted upon the amended record, and upon the briefs now on file.


Summaries of

In re De Leon’s Estate

Supreme Court of California
Dec 27, 1893
4 Cal. Unrep. 388 (Cal. 1893)
Case details for

In re De Leon’s Estate

Case Details

Full title:In re DE LEON’S ESTATE.

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Dec 27, 1893

Citations

4 Cal. Unrep. 388 (Cal. 1893)
4 Cal. Unrep. 388

Citing Cases

Ritchey v. McMichael

The defendant could not, as we have seen, so long as he held the relation of agent to the plaintiff for the…