gno.law

Estate of Murphy

California Supreme Court · S.F. No. 2218. · 1900-04-05 · Published · 60 P. 930 · 128 Cal. 339 · 1900 Cal. LEXIS 599

In the Matter of the Estate of Lawrence Murphy

Proceeding
appeal from an order
Trial court
Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco vacating a decree of final distribution of the estate of a deceased person
Trial judge
James M. Troutt
Outcome
other — The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Area
probate
Panel
The Court (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

This is a motion to dismiss an appeal taken by certain interested parties from the order of court vacating the decree of final distribution theretofore granted in the matter of the estate of Lawrence Murphy, deceased, upon the ground that the order of vacation is not an appealable order.

That such an order is not an appealable order was decided by this court in Estate of Calahan, 60 Cal. 232. That decision has remained unquestioned and unchallenged for eighteen years. It has been consistently upheld by this court whenever the question has arisen. (Estate of Dean, 62 Cal. 613; Lutz v. Christy, 67 Cal. 457; Estate of Cahalan, 70 Cal. 604; In re Wiard, 83 Cal. 619; Inre Bauquier, 88 Cal. 302-13; In re Walkerly, 94 Cal. 352; In reSmith, 98 Cal. 636; Iversen v. Superior Court, 115 Cal. 28;Estate of Wittmeier, 118 Cal. 255; Estate of Hickey, 121 Cal. 378. ) We are satisfied with the reasoning of these cases and the conclusions there expressed.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

Cites, in this corpus

Cited by