Gollard v. Bayless
| Decision Date | 29 October 1959 |
| Citation | 345 P.2d 299,174 Cal.App.2d 827 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Jeanne Louise GOLLARD, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Elma E. BAYLESS, C. C. Bayless and Suzanne Bayless, Defendants and Appellants. Civ. 24038. |
William J. Currer, Jr., and Moore, Trinkaus & Currer, Los Angeles, for appellants.
Overton, Lyman & Prince, Los Angeles, for respondent.
Plaintiff recovered judgment in the trial court and defendants have appealed. Plaintiff now moves this court to dismiss the appeal for the reason that the judgment appealed from is interlocutory and not final and therefore is not appealable.
The findings of fact and conclusions of law generally declare that the defendants are trustees of certain property and that the plaintiff has a beneficial interest in such property and the rents, issues and profits thereof, and further that the plaintiff is entitled to an accounting of the trust estate.
The judgment is entitled 'Interlocutory Judgment of Accounting.' A summary of its provisions is as follows: The matter is referred to an accountant to state an account of the trust estate; the accountant is to report to the court from time to time for any necessary instructions; procedural methods are set up to enable the court to conduct hearings, on notice, for the purpose of taking further evidence that might be required in the accounting; and also for hearings, on notice, on any objections to, or corrections of, the accounting. The judgment then provides as follows:
The judgment then 'restrained and enjoined' the defendants from dealing with the property in any manner that would affect its legal or equitable ownership.
Is this an appealable final judgment?
Section 963, subd. 1, Code of Civil Procedure, authorizes an appeal from a final judgment in the superior court. Subdivisions 2, 3 and 4 list certain other specific types of orders which are appealable, none of which are applicable here.
A judgment is final only when it determines all of the rights of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Oak Grove School Dist. of Santa Clara County v. City Title Ins. Co.
...rights of the parties and required no further judicial action to give effect to its provisions. (§ 963, subd. 1; Gollard v. Bayless, 174 Cal.App.2d 827, 828-829, 345 P.2d 299; Bakewell v. Bakewell, 21 Cal.2d 224, 227, 130 P.2d 975; Lyon v. Goss, 19 Cal.2d 659, 670, 123 P.2d 11; Alpers v. Bl......
-
Kinoshita v. Horio
...133, 141, 85 Cal.Rptr. 45; Wesley N. Taylor Co. v. Russell (1961) 194 Cal.App.2d 816, 822, 15 Cal.Rptr. 357; Gollard v. Bayless (1959) 174 Cal.App.2d 827, 829, 345 P.2d 299; Nesbitt v. Bruce Eells and Assoc. (1951) 105 Cal.App.2d 370, 372-373, 233 P.2d 183; David v. Goodman (1948) 89 Cal.Ap......
-
Investors Capital Management, Inc. v. Reiff
...rights of the parties and requires no further judicial action to give effect to its provisions. (Citations.)' (Gollard v. Bayless, 174 Cal.App.2d 827, 829, 345 P.2d 299, 300; see also Meehan v. Hopps, 45 Cal.2d 213, 217, 288 P.2d 267.) We have no 'final judgment' in this case. The word 'ren......
-
Laub v. Dudley, H031723 (Cal. App. 11/7/2008)
...all of the rights of the parties and requires no further judicial action to give effect to its provisions." (Gollard v. Bayless (1959) 174 Cal.App.2d 827, 828-829 [judgment was appealable, where court enjoined defendants from dealing with trust property in any manner that would affect its l......