Legal Opinion

Dore v. Klumpke

California Supreme Court

Decided September 26, 1903No. S.F. No. 3466PublishedCited by 1 opinion

MOTION to dismiss an.appeal from an interlocutory decree of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco in an action for partition. James M. Seawell, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.

This is a motion to dismiss an appeal taken from an interlocutory judgment in an action for partition. -The interlocutory decree was filed September 21, 1902. Judgment thereon was entered on September 29, 1902, and this appeal was taken December 30, 1902. Section 936 of the Code ef Civil Procedure makes provision for an appeal from such an interlocutory judgment. Section 939 (subd. 3) of the Code of Civil Procedure establishes the time within which an appeal may be taken, and limits it to “within sixty days after the order of interlocutory judgment is made and entered in the minutes of the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Watson v. SutroCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
  2. Bartlett v. MacKeyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Lane v. PellissierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API