In re Estate of McGinn

Good Law
3 Coffey 127
Superior Court of California, County of San FranciscoDecember 1, 1893No. 7,054California844 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Coffey, J.

The appeal was from the judgment and decree revoking probate of will and from an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial.

An undertaking on appeal in the sum of $300 was given in this case. An additional undertaking was also given in double the amount of the costs taxed in the case.

The appeal is not from a judgment or order directing the payment of money. The character of the appeal is already given. The fact that costs were allowed does not characterize the judgment. The court might have, in the same judgment, ordered costs to be paid out of the estate. Costs are an incident to nearly every judgment; but the fact that costs are allowed does not bring the appeal within section 942 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The appeal is not a case provided for in sections 942, 943, 944 or 945.

“In cases not provided for in sections 942, 943, 944 and 945, the perfecting of an appeal by giving the undertaking mentioned in section 941 stays proceedings in the court below upon the judgment or order appealed from”: In re Schedel, 69 Cal. 242 , 243, 10 Pac. 334 .

“ ‘Sections 942 to 945, inclusive, apply to appellants who are required to perform the directions of the judgment or…

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.