From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mahoney v. Superior Court

Supreme Court of California,In Bank
Oct 7, 1903
140 Cal. 513 (Cal. 1903)

Opinion

S.F. No. 3643.

October 7, 1903.

PETITION for Writ of Certiorari to review an order of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco dismissing a contest of probate of will. J.V. Coffey, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

M.C. Hassett, for Petitioners.

J.M. Burnett, for Respondents.


This is a petition for a writ of certiorari to review an order of the superior court dismissing a contest of a proved will, upon the ground that the necessary citation was not issued within a year after the decree admitting the will to probate. Among other grounds of demurrer to the petition, is the existence of a right to appeal, which, whenever it is available, excludes the right to proceed by certiorari. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1068.)

We think the demurrer must be sustained on this ground. The order which we are asked to review put an end to the contest, and was in effect an order refusing to revoke the probate of the will, which is one of the orders made appealable by the amendment of 1901 to section 963 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petition is dismissed for the reason that the order in question can be reviewed on appeal, and that certiorari is therefore not the proper remedy.

Shaw, J., Angellotti, J., Van Dyke, J., McFarland, J., Henshaw, J., and Lorigan, J., concurred.


Summaries of

Mahoney v. Superior Court

Supreme Court of California,In Bank
Oct 7, 1903
140 Cal. 513 (Cal. 1903)
Case details for

Mahoney v. Superior Court

Case Details

Full title:ANN MAHONEY et al., Petitioners, v. SUPERIOR COURT etc., et al.…

Court:Supreme Court of California,In Bank

Date published: Oct 7, 1903

Citations

140 Cal. 513 (Cal. 1903)
74 P. 13

Citing Cases

In re Ferguson's Estate

At the outset we are met with the objection that this court does not have jurisdiction of the appeal. It is…

Estate of Plumb

The respondents insist that no appeal lies from such order. But the contrary has been decided in Mahoney v.…