TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Dore v. Klumpke

ELLEN DORE Et Al., Respondents, v. JOHN G. KLUMPKE Et Al., Appellants

Dore v. Klumpke, 73 P. 1064 (Cal. 1903)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
September 26, 1903
Docket
No. S.F. No. 3466.
Judges
Henshaw
Citations
73 P. 1064140 Cal. 3561903 Cal. LEXIS 603
Headnotes
Partition—Interlocutory Degree—Time for Appeal—Dismissal.— An appeal from an interlocutory decree in partition must be taken within sixty days after the order therefor is made and entered in the minutes of the court or filed with the clerk; and if not so taken, must be dismissed. Id.—Running op Statute.—It is the entry of the interlocutory decree, and not the mere ministerial act of the clerk in compiling the judgment-roll after such entry, which sets the statute of limitations running for the purpose of appeal.
Summary
MOTION to dismiss an.appeal from an interlocutory decree of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco in an action for partition. James M. Seawell, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Henshaw

HENSHAW, J.

This is a motion to dismiss an appeal taken from an interlocutory judgment in an action for partition. -The interlocutory decree was filed September 21, 1902. Judgment thereon was entered on September 29, 1902, and this appeal was taken December 30, 1902. Section 936 of the Code ef Civil Procedure makes provision for an appeal from such an interlocutory judgment. Section 939 (subd. 3) of the Code of Civil Procedure establishes the time within which an appeal may be taken, and limits it to “within sixty days after the order of interlocutory judgment is made and entered in the minutes of the court or filed with the clerk.” Admittedly, this appeal is not taken within that time, and therefore must be dismissed ‘upon the authority of the statute, supported by the decisions of this court in Watson v. Sutro, 77 Cal. 609 , and Bartlett v. Mackey, 130 Cal. 181 . In response to this, however, it is urged that as upon his appeal *357 from the judgment the appellant must bring to this court the judgment-roll, the time in which he is to take his appeal begins to run from the date when such judgment-roll is actually made up; but this is contrary to the express language of the statute and to all of the decisions of this court upon the matter. It is the entry of the judgment, and not the mere ministerial act of the clerk in compiling the judgment-roll,— which by the very contemplation of the law is to be done after the entry of the judgment (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 670),—which sets the statute of limitation running.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

McFarland, J., and Lorigan, J., concurred.

Petition for hearing in Bank received too late to admit of consideration.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1929: 119292026peak 1929 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Lane v. Pellissier283 P. 810 (Cal. 1929)

Most recent

  1. Lane v. Pellissier283 P. 810 (Cal. 1929)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Watson v. Sutro, 20 P. 88 (Cal. 1888) 9
Bartlett v. MacKey, 62 P. 482 (Cal. 1900) 5

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list