gno.law

Dunham v. Weisenberger

California Court of Appeal · Civ. 13991 · 1949-06-02 · Published · 92 Cal. App. 2d 162 · 206 P.2d 406 · 1949 Cal. App. LEXIS 1665

Estate of HAZEL RYKER, Deceased. MAY F. DUNHAM, as Administratrix, Etc., Appellant, v. PAUL R. WEISENBERGER, Respondent

Area
civil
Panel
John T. Nourse (author)

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion — Nourse

NOURSE, P. J.

The appeal is from an order made in probate denying a motion made under section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure to amend an order confirming a sale of real estate. The motion was based upon the ground that the portion of the order directing the administratrix to pay a commission on the sale to a real estate broker was inadvertently made because valuable services had not been rendered by him.

Section 1240 of the Probate Code permits an appeal from an order in probate directing a sale or confirming a sale of property of an estate. No provision is found for an appeal from an order denying an amendment to or the vacation of an order of confirmance. In Estate of O’Dea, 15 Cal.2d 637 [104 P.2d 368], the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal from an order denying appellants’ motion under section 473 to be relieved from their default for failure to appear. The court held that since the motion was not one mentioned in section 1240 of the Probate Code, an appeal would not Re. The rule was followed and other” authorities were cited in Estate of Brady, 32 Cal.2d 478 [196 P.2d 881].

Appeal dismissed.

Goodell, J., and Dooling, J., concurred.

Cites, in this corpus

Cited by