Fisher
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a decree of the Superior Court of Marin County partially distributing the estate of a decedent, and from an order refusing to change the record of the date of the entry of said decree. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Hayne, C.
The first appeal is from a decree of partial distribution. It was taken sixty-two days after the entry of the decree. This was too late. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1715; Estate of Burns, 54 Cal. 223; Estate of Harland, 64 Cal. 379; Estate of Burton, 64 Cal. 428.) The argument as to the construction and constitutionality of the statute does not require refutation. The fact that the appeal was too late goes to the jurisdiction, and hence, it is unimportant whether the motion to dismiss has lapsed or not.
The second appeal is from an order refusing to change the records so as to show that…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Estate of BurtonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
- Estate of BurnsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- Estate of HarlandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1883
3Cited by5 opinions
- Doak v. BrusonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
- In re the Estate of HeldtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- In re Estate of BackusCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Estate of Hanley v. HanleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
- Estate of Hanley v. HanleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943