Adams v. Woods (1861) · DecisionDepot

Adams v. Woods

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1861Published

Before: Baldwin

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an order directing the delivery of property to a third-party intervenor is a final, appealable order rather than an interlocutory one.

Issues

Whether an order for the delivery of a book to a third party is an interlocutory order or a final, appealable order.

Disposition. Reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We do not regard it, however, as an interlocutory order.”

“On the contrary, we think it in effect a special proceeding; not the less so because entitled of another cause' and operating on a subject involved in such cause.”

“We see no necessity of waiting for an appeal until final judgment, or of compelling the parties to resort to other modes of procedure for redress.”

Synopsis

Pease, who had instituted a suit in the Supreme Court of New York against defendants, moved the Pourth District Court of this State, where the suit of Adams v. Woods et al. was pending, for an order on Naglee—receiver in this last suit, and as such having in his possession the books of the firm—to attach certain of those books to his deposition to be taken under commission from New York in the suit there. The Court below ordered the books to be delivered to Wells, Pargo & Co., to be by them taken to New York, and after being used on the trial in Pease’s suit to be returned to Naglee : Held., that this intervention by Pease is in effect a special proceeding, involving new and distinct rights, and that the order is not interlocutory, and may be appealed from.

Baldwin, J. delivered the opinion of the Court Field, C. J. and Cope, J. concurring.

We think the order for the delivery of the book should not have been made. We do not regard it, however, as an interlocutory order. It certainly partakes of an independent proceeding on the part of Pease, the plaintiff in the notice, as much as if he claimed the book as his property, and the Court ordered it to be given up to him. Such an intervention, involving new and distinct rights, and being limited and spent by the final order, can scarcely be considered as merely interlocutory, and appurtenant to the main litigation. On the contrary, we think it in effect a special proceeding; not the less so because entitled of another cause' and operating on a subject involved in such cause. If Pease had claimed a sum of money in the receiver’s hands, and the Court had awarded it to him, we suppose this would be such a final order as to justify an appeal by the receiver or the parties to the litigation aggrieved by the order. We see no necessity of waiting for an appeal until final judgment, or of compelling the parties to resort to other modes of procedure for redress. It is a simple and expeditious remedy to appeal, and we think it admissible.

Order reversed.

Adams v. Woods

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief