Bloom v. Waxman

McCOMB, J.

May 17, 1937, plaintiff filed an action for declaratory relief in the superior court. September 2, 1937, Andre Witier was permitted to file a complaint in interven

[647]

tion. June 29, 1939, judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff in intervention against plaintiff Bloom and others. Plaintiff urges that the judgment should be reversed for the reason that the plaintiff in intervention (respondent) had no right to intervene in the action.

This is the sole question necessary for us to determine:

In the absence of an objection to the filing of a complaint in intervention, either by demurrer, motion to strike or other appropriate proceeding, may a party for the first time on appeal raise the objection that the order of the trial court permitting the intervention was improper?

This question must be answered in the negative. The law is established in California that in the absence of an objection in the trial court to an order permitting the filing of a complaint in intervention a party may not urge error in the mating of such order for the first time on appeal.

(People

v.

Reis,

76 Cal. 269, 273 [18 Pac. 309] ;

Smith

v.

Penny,

44 Cal. 161, 164;

McKenty

v.

Gladwin, Hugg & Co.,

10 Cal. 227, 228;

County of Yuba

v.

Adams & Co.,

7 Cal. 35;

Carlin

v.