Born v. Horstmann
California Supreme Court
Appeal from an interlocutory decree of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco in an action for partition.
Read the full summary
Appeal from an interlocutory decree of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco in an action for partition. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court, except that the order staying proceedings, which was sought to be modified upon motion of Mrs. Zimmer, was made by the appellate court upon motion of the guardian ad litem of minor defendants, grandchildren of the testatrix, to prevent the payment of any part of the corpus of the estate, or proceeds of the sale of the .property under the decree, pending the appeal, to the daughters of the testatrix.
1Opinion of the CourtPaterson, J.
The three-hundred-dollar undertaking on appeal herein stays all proceedings on the judgment, independently of the restraining order made by the court on the twenty-seventh day of April, 1888. In In re Schedel, 69 Cal. 243, it was held that “sections 942 to 945, inclusive, apply to appellants who are required to perform the directions of the judgment or order appealed from.” In the case before us the appellants are not required by the judgment to do anything. Therefore, the perfecting of the appeal by giving the undertaking mentioned in section 941 ipso facto operates as a supersedeas, and the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Conrad v. LongMichigan Supreme Court · 1875
- In re Estate of SchedelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Thayer v. SpearSupreme Court of Vermont · 1885
3Cited by23 opinions
- Estate of LefrancCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952
- In re the Judicial Settlement of the Intermediate Account of HaightAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1900
- Coe v. HillMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1909
- McAneny v. Superior Court of Santa Clara Cty.California Supreme Court · 1906
- Halsted v. First Savings BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.