Estate of Plumb
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Daniel A. Ryan, for Appellants. Keith C. Eversole, and Charles M. Mannon, for Respondents.
1Opinion of the CourtSloss, J.
A proceeding for the revocation of probate of the will of Orrin Henry Plumb was dismissed by the court. The contestants appeal from the order of dismissal.
The respondents insist that no appeal lies from such order. But the contrary has been decided in Mahoney v. Superior Court, 140 Cal. 513, [74 Pac. 13], where the court held that the order was, in effect, “one refusing to revoke the probate of a will,” and thus appealable under the amendment of 1901 to section 963 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The ruling was followed in Estate of Baker, 170 Cal. 578, 583, [150 Pac. 989]. It may be added…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- In Re Estate of BakerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- Ryer v. RyerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Estate of RicksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
- In Re Estate of SimmonsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
- Huffaker v. DonnellyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Estate of EmeryCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
- Middlecoff v. MiddlecoffCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962