Estate of Cahill
California Supreme Court
MOTION to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco refusing to vacate an order setting apart a homestead. Frank J. Murasky, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtVan Dyke, J.
The appeal in this case is taken from an order denying a motion of the appellants herein to vacate in part a certain order made by the said court setting apart a homestead to said Anastasia Cahill.
The respondent moves to dismiss the appeal so taken, on the ground that the order appealed from is not an appealable order, and we think the motion must be granted.
The constitution confers upon this court general .appellate jurisdiction in many matters, but in probate proceedings the language conferring jurisdiction reads: “And in all such probate matters as may be provided by law.” (Art. VI, sec. .…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- In re the Estate of WiardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Estate of CalahanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882
- In re Estate of WalkerlyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- In re the Estate of SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- In re the Estate of WittmeierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Cahill v. Superior Court of S.F.California Supreme Court · 1904
- Title Ins. Trust Co. v. Calif. Etc. Co.California Supreme Court · 1911
- Estate of O'DeaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
- In Re Estate of AllenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
- Estate of HartCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.