In re Estate of Baby
California Supreme Court
Motion to dismiss an appeal from a decree of distribution of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
The Court.
The respondents have moved to dismiss the appeal herein on tw'o grounds, viz.:. 1. The judgment wras satisfied by the appellants before the appeal was taken; 2. Notice of appeal was not served on Gibbs, one of the distributees.
=The decree of distribution was entered March 24,1890, and the notice of appeal was served May 12, 1890. On the eleventh day of April, 1890, there -were filed in the court below two receipts, signed by the appellants, in which they respectively acknowledged that they had received from the administrator certain sums of money and personal property, in full of…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Moore v. FloydOregon Supreme Court · 1872
- Morton v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
- People ex rel. Dunn v. BurnsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
3Cited by37 opinions
- Reitano v. YankwichCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
- In Re Estate of HubbellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
- Shaver v. TunsteadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
- Warner Bros. Co. v. FreudCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- Kenney v. ParksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.