In re Estate of Blythe

California Supreme Court Jul 12, 1895 No. S. F. No. 3Published

Before: Henshaw

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an appeal must be dismissed when the appellant's interest in the underlying controversy has been extinguished by a final judicial decree, rendering the appeal a moot question.

Issues

Whether an appeal should be dismissed when the appellant's claim to heirship has been defeated by a final judgment in a separate proceeding.
Whether the potential for recovering costs on appeal constitutes a sufficient interest to maintain an appeal after the underlying claim has been extinguished.

Disposition. dismissed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The affirmance of this judgment and order leaves this appellant a stranger in interest to the proceedings upon distribution.”

“The court is not empowered to decide moot' questions or abstract propositions, or to declare for the government of future cases principles or rules of law which cannot affect the result as to the thing in issue in the case before it.”

“In both cases the interest of the appellant in the controversy has come definitively to an end, and the decision on the appeal cannot affect the result as to the thing in issue in the case before the court.”

Synopsis

Estate oe Deceased Person—Distribution—Dismissal op Appeal— Parts' Interested.—A woman, whose asserted claim as widow of a deceased person has been finally adjudicated adversely to her on appeal, in a proceeding under section 1664 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to determine heirship and the right of succession in the estate of said deceased, thereupon ceases to be a party interested in the estate, and cannot afterward maintain an appeal from- a decree distributing the estate.

Id.—Proceeding to Determine Heirship—Costs on Appeal.—An appeal by her from the decree of distribution, taken pending the final determination by the supreme court of her appeal from an order denying her a new trial in the proceeding to determine heirship, will be dismissed by the supreme court upon its affirmance of such order; and this result will follow, notwithstanding she might be entitled to recover costs upon a reversal of the decree of distribution.

Henshaw, J. This is a motion to dismiss the appeal of Alice Edith Blythe, prosecuted from, the order and decree of the court in probate distributing certain property of the estate of Thomas H. Blythe to Florence Blythe Hinckley.

The petition for distribution of Florence Blythe Hinckley was filed on the eighteenth day of June, 1894. Alice Edith Blythe appeared and opposed the petition by demurrer and answer, and then appealed from the decree which was rendered October 26, 1894. Notice of appeal was given upon November 3, 1894. The bill of exceptions was settled upon January 15, 1895, and upon February 25, 1895, appellant’s transcript upon appeal was filed with the clerk of this court.

At the time of the filing of the petition the appeal of Alice Edith Blythe from the judgment made and given in the case, entitled “ Florence Blythe v. Abbie Ayres and others,” had been decided adversely to her contention upon April 24, 1894 (Blythe v. Ayres, 102 Cal, 254), but her appeal from the order denying her a new trial in the same matter was pending and undetermined. Upon January 2,1895, the last-named order was affirmed upon appeal. (Hinckley v. Ayres, 105 Cal. 357.)

The action of Florence Blythe v. Abbie Ayres et al. was a proceeding under section 1664 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to determine heirship and the right of succession and distribution in the matter of the estate of Thomas H. Blythe. Alice Edith Blythe asserted her rights as the widow of the deceased. The findings and judgment of the court were against her claim of widowhood.

This judgment and the order refusing a new trial of [126]the issues having both been affirmed by"this court, it is contended by respondent that appellant herein has ceased to be a party in interest or to stand in a position to be in any wise affected by the questions involved upon this appeal, and that, therefore, it should be dismissed.

The decision affirming the order denying the new trial was handed down after the commencement of the proceeding sought to be reviewed upon this appeal, but it will be considered by the court in deciding this motion. It is not only a matter of which we take judicial notice, being a part of the record proceedings in one and the same estate (Hollenbach v. Schnabel, 101 Cal. 312; 40 Am. St. Rep. 57), but it is formally brought to our attention by suggestion and proof under affidavit. (First Nat. Bank v. Henderson, 101 Cal. 309.)

In re Estate of Blythe

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief