Misrach v. Liederman
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtBishop, J.
We are of the opinion that an appeal is not authorized from either of the orders of which complaint is made. Each order purported to grant a new trial in a proceeding to determine title where a third party claim had been made. The orders differ in that the one in the first case, Misrach v. Liederman, was made before the 1935 amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure had become effective, while all the proceedings in Spiegelman v. Bowlus were under the code provisions as they now appear. We are considering these appeals together because they present a common problem and in spite of their…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Vallejo & Northern R.R. v. Reed Orchard Co.California Supreme Court · 1915
- In Re the Guardianship of CoburnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
- In Re DaedlerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
- Koppikus v. State Capitol Comm'rsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
- Stanton v. Superior Court of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Exchange National Bank of Tulsa v. RansomCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
- Cassel v. GregoriCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937
- Reynolds v. ReynoldsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1978
- Peterson v. GroesbeckCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937