Estate of Heaton

Good Law
139 Cal. 237·1903 Cal. LEXIS 808·73 P. 186
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJune 5, 1903S.F. No. 3505.California315 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Beatty, J.

This is a motion to dismiss an appeal. The order appealed from settled the account of a special administrator as presented, and directed him to pay the balance in his hands to another person described as special administrator. The former appeals, and the latter moves to dismiss his appeal upon the ground that he is not a party aggrieved. (Code Civ. Proe., sec. 938.) But if the order is erroneous he is aggrieved, for it runs against him, is enforceable against him, and commands him to pay money to a person who is not entitled to receive it. To determine that he is not aggrieved is therefore to determine the merits of the appeal. This cannot be done without a hearing upon the merits and an examination of the record, and it is the settled practice of the court not to decide whether an order or judgment is or is not erroneous on a motion to dismiss.

The cases called to our attention are not in conflict with this view. In Rankin v. Central Pacific R. R. Co., 73 Cal. 96 , the court did not inquire into the correctness of the order appealed from. It simply decided that, whether right or wrong, the party attempting to appeal was not affected by it. Here the appellant is affected by it.…

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.