Olmstead v. West
| Citation | 2 Cal.Rptr. 443,177 Cal.App.2d 652 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
| Decision Date | 04 February 1960 |
| Parties | Aileen S. OLMSTEAD and Alford P. Olmstead, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. William WEST, Defendant and Appellant. Civ. 6252. |
Hews, Hews & Brown, Riverside, for defendant and appellant.
Alford P. Olmstead, Riverside, and Wendell P. Hubbard, Los Angeles, for plaintiffs and respondents.
The plaintiffs brought this action to specifically enforce the provisions of a written option to purchase real estate allegedy exercised by them. The trial court found in favor of the plaintiffs' contention and entered an interlocutory judgment which directed the defendant, within a specified time, to execute a good and sufficient deed conveying to plaintiffs the fee title to certain real property; to cause said deed to be placed in a designated escrow; and to furnish plaintiffs with a policy of title insurance showing title to said property to be vested in defendant free and clear of all encumbrances except as specifically noted; which also decreed that should the defendant fail to execute said deed within the time designated that the clerk of the court should execute such a deed on behalf of defendant and place it in the aforesaid escrow; which directed the plaintiffs to deposit designated sums of money in said escrow and which decreed a method of payment of the expenses and charges of this escrow and the cost of the policy of title insurance. The interlocutory judgment further provided: 'That if the plaintiffs fail to deposit the aforesaid sums in escrow within ten days after delivery of the aforesaid deed in escrow, either by defendant or by the Clerk of this Court, then and in that event the complaint of the plaintiffs be dismissed and the plaintiffs be forever barred of the right of specific performance of the lease and option agreement and that the same be given up to be cancelled', and '* * * that this is an interlocutory judgment only and the Court hereby expressly retains and reserves jurisdiction of all proceedings until final judgment, in order to make final determination of the rights of the parties.' (Italics ours).
In their brief the plaintiffs direct the attention of this court to the fact that the interlocutory judgment in question is not appealable. However, plaintiffs suggest that they do not press this point 'vigorously' and 'are willing that the matter be decided on this appeal rather than to have the appeal dismissed on such technical grounds, but desire to be protected from a later appeal from the final judgment which may be entered later'.
The difference between a final and an interlocutory judgment was stated by the court in Lyon v. Goss, 19 Cal.2d 659, 670, 123 P.2d 11, 17, as follows:
'As a general test, which must be adapted to the particular circumstances of the individual case, it may be said that where no issue is left for future consideration except the fact of compliance or noncompliance with the terms of the first decree, that decree is final, but where anything further in the nature of judicial action on the part of the court is essential to a final determination of the rights of the parties, the decree is interlocutory.'
Judgments containing provisions similar to that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
California School Emp. Ass'n v. Personnel Commission of Pajaro Val. Unified School Dist. of Santa Cruz County
...787, 791, 257 P.2d 41; Hollywood Circle v. Dept. Alco. Control (1957) 153 Cal.App.2d 523, 526, 314 P.2d 1007; Olmstead v. West (1960) 177 Cal.App.2d 652, 654, 2 Cal.Rptr. 443.) The principles are incontrovertible, but the precedents referred to do not necessitate a finding that the discrepa......
-
CNA Ins. Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., B100236
...Civ. Proc., § 430.80; Barnick v. Longs Drug Stores, Inc. (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 377, 379-380, 250 Cal.Rptr. 10; Olmstead v. West (1960) 177 Cal.App.2d 652, 654, 2 Cal.Rptr. 443.) CNA's basic contention is that the WCAB does not have jurisdiction to award benefits to a worker who "has already......
-
Efron v. Kalmanovitz
...is without appellate jurisdiction, that court has no recourse other than to dismiss the appeal on its own motion. Olmstead v. West, 177 Cal.App.2d 652, 2 Cal.Rptr. 443; Golden v. Stansbury, Inc., supra, 155 Cal.App.2d at pages 482-483, 318 P.2d at page 135; Estate of Murphy, 50 Cal.App.2d 4......
-
Carver v. Teitsworth
...themselves appealable. (See Wesley N. Taylor Co. v. Russell (1961) 194 Cal.App.2d 816, 820, 15 Cal.Rptr. 357; Olmstead v. West (1960) 177 Cal.App.2d 652, 657, 2 Cal.Rptr. 443; 7 Witkin, Cal. Procedure, Judgments, §§ 10-12, pp. 458-461.) Thus the trial court's order is not one final judgment......