In re Estate of Scott
Before: Harrison
Synopsis
Appeal—Dismissal—Time to File Transcript—Settlement op Statement—Presumption of Jurisdiction.—An appellant is entitled to forty days after the settlement of a statement on motion for a new trial in which to file his transcript upon appeal; and upon a motion to dismiss the appeal, it must he presumed that the act of the judge in settling the statement was within his jurisdiction.
In.—Review op Error.—Any error in settling the statement must be considered at the hearing of the appeal, and cannot be reviewed upon a motion to dismiss the appeal.
Id.—Appeal from New Trial Order—Defects in Proceedings—Notice of Motion.—An appeal from an order denying a new trial will not be dismissed for any defect in the proceedings in the superior court leading up to the motion, or on the ground that, the court improperly made the order. The failure to serve the notice of the motion upon all the parties to the proceeding, or any defect in the character of the notice, is not ground of motion to dismiss such an appeal, and can only be considered upon the hearing of the appeal.
Id.—Order Admitting Will to Probate—Presumption upon Appeal— Use of New Trial Statement.—Upon appeal from an order admitting a will to probate, where it appears that a motion for a new trial had been made and denied, it will he presumed that the settled statement on such motion, which became a record of the court, was used on the hearing of the motion; and no defect in the proceedings for the motion can he ground for dismissing the appeal from the order.
Id.—Service of Notice of Appeal—Adverse Parties.—Upon appeal from such an order, the legatees and devisees under the will are adverse parties, upon whom the notice of appeal must be served; and if one of them is not served therewith, the appellate court has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal as between the other parties, and it must be dismissed.
Id.—Service upon Parties Appearing—Attorney for Absent Parties. A notice of appeal from an order admitting a will to probate addressed to and served upon all parties who appeared at the contest of the probate of the will, including an attorney for absent heirs and creditors not otherwise represented, who appeared at the hearing of the contest, is sufficient to give jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
Id.—Probate Matters—Right of Appeal—Liberal Construction of Statutes.—The right of appeal to this court from the superior court in all such probate matters as may be provided by law, is given by the constitution, and statutes making provision for such appeals, and regulating the procedure therefor, should be liberally construed.
Id.—Entry of Order—Time for Appeal—Stipulation—Estoppel.— The time for appeal from an order admitting a will to probate begins to run only from the date of the actual entry of the order at length in the records of the court, and is determined by the statute, and not by the stipulation of the parties. A stipulation that the order was actually entered at a date prior to its actual entry does not estop the appellant from showing the contrary to sustain the appeal, the respondent not having parted with nor obtained any right by reason of the stipulation, and not being injured by the disregard thereof.
HARRISON, J. Motion to dismiss the appeal. The appellant filed a contest in the superior court of the probate of the will of Angelia R. Scott, and the issues made upon his contest were tried and decided in favor of the proponents of the will. The findings of the court and its direction that the will be admitted to probate were filed September 12, 1898, and on October 12, 1898, an order in pursuance thereof was entered. A notice of appeal from this order was given by the appellant herein November 2, 1898, and on December 2, 1898, he filed and served a second notice of appeal from the order. February 23, 1899, the proponents of the will gave notice to the appellant of a motion to dismiss his appeal for failure to file the transcript within forty days after perfecting the appeal, and upon the further ground that the notices of appeal were defective, and had not been served upon all the adverse parties.
1. The contestant gave notice of a motion for a new trial September 21, 1898, and thereafter prepared a statement to be used upon this motion, which with the amendments were presented to the judge of the superior court for settlement, and at the time the notice of the motion herein was given proceedings [673]were pending before the judge of the superior court for the settlement of this statement. Under rule II of this court the appellant was entitled to forty days after the settlement of this statement within which to file the transcript.
The respondents have presented certain affidavits purporting to show irregularities in the proceedings for the settlement of the statement, by which they claim that the judge had no jurisdiction or authority to settle the same, and which they presented to him as objections to its settlement by him, and therefore contend that, as this statement cannot be considered upon the appeal from the order, it forms no excuse for the delay in filing the transcript. It was shown, however, at the hearing herein that subsequent to the giving of notice of this motion the judge of the superior court had in fact settled the statement, and we must hold that the appellant had forty days after such settlement within which to file the transcript. Upon a morion to dismiss the appeal, we must assume that the act of the judge in settling the statement was within his jurisdiction, and that he was authorized to settle it. If the respondents would claim that he committed error in so doing, such error must be considered at the hearing of the appeal, and cannot be reviewed upon a motion to dismiss the appeal.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)