Broder

Broder v. Conklin

Good Law
121 Cal. 289·1898 Cal. LEXIS 895·53 P. 797
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJune 25, 1898Sac. No. 375California720 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Garoutte, J.

This appeal arises from an order made subsequent to judgment in the ease of Broder et al. v. Conklin et al, ante, p. 282. In view of the fact that the appeal from the judgment and order denying the motion for a new trial in the principal case has this day been held ineffectual, and the judgment and order affirmed, it would seem that the appeal in the present case, in its importance to appellants, has been reduced to very small proportions. Yet, nevertheless, it demands some consideration.

The facts are these: A receiver was appointed in the above-entitled cause. Upon a stipulation entered into by all the parties he was discharged, and the net proceeds of his receivership were ordered by the court to be placed in the county treasury subject to the, further order of the court. These proceedings took place pending the litigation in the main case. After the judgment was rendered by the trial court in that case in favor of defendants, upon application of their attorneys the court ordered these moneys which had been heretofore placed in the hands of the county treasurer to be paid to them. This appeal is now prosecuted from that order.

The particular grounds of fact and law which…

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.