In re Siering (1891) · DecisionDepot

In re Siering

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

California Supreme Court Jul 15, 1891 No. No. 14341Published

Before: Paterson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court dismissed the appeal because the record failed to demonstrate that the appellants had filed claims against the insolvent debtors or otherwise established standing to challenge the judgment.

Issues

Whether the record sufficiently established the appellants' standing to appeal the judgment.
Whether facts occurring after the entry of judgment can be introduced via affidavit in the appellate court.

Disposition. dismissed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“There is nothing in the transcript to show that the appellants ever filed any claim against the insolvent debtors.”

“What occurred in the court below, subsequent to the entry of the judgment, should appear in the record. It cannot be shown by affidavit in the first instance in this court.”

Synopsis

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco.

The appeal is from a decree settling the final account of Frank Locan, as assignee of the insolvent partners, Herman Siering and Robert Siering, doing business under the firm name of H. Siering & Co. The appellants describe themselves as creditors of the insolvents. Further facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Paterson, J. — There is nothing in the transcript to show that the appellants ever filed any claim against the insolvent debtors. The judgment recites that all the creditors of the insolvents who had filed claims, and the assignee, appeared at the hearing of the contest, and mutually agreed upon an adjustment and settlement of all matters of difference between them. If the appellants [208]afterwards, by filing claims, acquired the right to move to set aside the judgment or to appeal therefrom, the record should show the facts. What occurred in the court below, subsequent to the entry of the judgment, should appear in the record. It cannot be shown by affidavit in the first instance in this court.

The appeal is dismissed.

McFarland, J., Harrison, J., Garoutte, J., Sharp-stein, J., De Haven, J., and Beatty, C. J., concurred.

Rehearing denied.

In re Siering

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief