Cohen

Cohen v. Herbert

Good Law
186 Cal. App. 2d 488·1960 Cal. App. LEXIS 1656·8 Cal. Rptr. 922
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 18, 1960Civ. 24667California2,730 words

Opinion

Opinion

Vallee, J.

Appeals by defendants Bow and Nancy Herbert from an order appointing a receiver. They also appeal from orders denying their motions for a continuance of the hearing of plaintiffs’ motion for an order appointing a receiver. The orders denying a continuance are not appealable (Estate of McCarthy, 23 Cal.App.2d 395, 396 [ 73 P.2d 913 ]), and those appeals will be dismissed. They are reviewable on the appeals from the order appointing a receiver. The appeals are here on a clerk’s transcript and a settled statement.

In compliance with rule 7, Rules on Appeal, each defendant stated in effect as his and her points on appeal that the court abused its discretion in denying them a continuance. We have concluded the points are well founded.

The action was filed on October 26, 1959. The complaint alleged that Bow and Nancy Herbert are general partners, and plaintiffs and Bow Herbert are limited partners in a limited partnership which operates a card club in Gardena known as The Horseshoe Club. On information and belief, it is alleged that Bow Herbert made various improper charges against partnership accounts, commingled assets and liabilities of the partnership with other entities under his…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.