Spitzer

Richmond v. Spitzer

Good Law
1968 Cal. App. LEXIS 1915·260 Cal. App. 2d 765·67 Cal. Rptr. 563
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 3, 1968Civ. No. 31435California940 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Collins, J.

—Appellant’s notice of appeal purports to be “from the order and judgment, on October 7,1966, known as Item 501 and Item 502 heard on October 6, 1966, . . . and noticed to Virginia Richmond on October 11, 1966, ...” The record shows that the matter of the executor’s first “Account Current and Report ...” was heard on October 6, 1966, that no hearing was had or order made on October 7, 1966; that a formal order titled “Decree Settling First Account Current” was signed and filed on October 19, 1966. At oral argument appellant’s counsel advised the court that the intended appeal was from this latter order (called ‘ ‘Decree ”), and we shall so treat it.

Appellant attacks the jurisdiction of the court on the ground that the matter was heard and determined by a commissioner sitting as judge pro tempore without compliance having been had with a constitutional provision for a stipulation by the parties litigant. (Cal. Const., art. VI, §5.) 2 The record shows that, at the hearing, appellant was represented by an attorney who noted Ms appearance on the record; he voiced no objection to the matter being heard by the commissioner, and he participated fully in the hearing which ensued. He…

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.