gno.law

Schwartz v. Schwartz

California Court of Appeal · Civ. 34556 · 1970-03-09 · Published · 5 Cal. App. 3d 141 · 85 Cal. Rptr. 49 · 1970 Cal. App. LEXIS 1424

MORRIS SCHWARTZ, Plaintiff, v. FRED SCHWARTZ, Defendant and Appellant; LAWRENCE L. LIGHT, Petitioner and Respondent; R. E. ALLEN, as Receiver, Etc., Defendant and Respondent

Area
civil
Panel
Jefferson (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 — Jefferson

Opinion JEFFERSON, Acting P. J.

This appeal is a companion to the appeal of Fred Schwartz in Schwartz v. Schwartz, 2d Civil No. 33989 [ante, p. 133; 85 Cal.Rptr. 45], filed concurrently with this opinion, Here Fred Schwartz appeals from an order of the superior court made on May 6, 1968, in department 65 of that court, denying his motion “to have Court, pursuant to Order of April 1, 1960 appointing and instructing R. E. Allen as Receiver for Central Tire and Salvage Company to defend or prosecute all litigation for or against partnership, order and instruct R. E. Allen, to oppose and defend motion by Lawrence L. Light, Esq., seeking obtainment of $3,851.64 less advances and credits from partnership estate, as attorney’s fees, . . .”

By his motion, Mr. Schwartz sought an order instructing a receiver. Under the rationale of the court in Title Ins. & Trust Co.

v. California Dev. Co., 159 Cal. 484, 492-493 [114 P. 838], an order denying a motion to instruct a receiver may not be considered as a final determination of a matter pending in the trial court. Rather, such an order must be regarded as an intermediate ruling, the propriety of which may be considered on an appeal from the final account of the receiver, The order in question is thus nonappealable. (See our opinion in Schwartz v. Schwartz, 2d Civ.

*143 No. 33989 [ante, p. 133 ], filed concurrently herewith.)

The .appeal is dismissed.

Kingsley, J., and Dunn, J., concurred.

Cites, in this corpus

Cited by