Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
WILSON et al. v. DAY.
Appellant, Myrtle F. Day, was a defendant in an action involving real property. She filed a cross-complaint alleging grounds for the appointment of a receiver, and upon her application respondent R. E. Allen was appointed receiver and thereafter duly qualified and acted as such. His first account and report as receiver was filed and approved. Thereafter, appellant Day, with court permission, sued Allen and others in the United States District Court for damages claimed to have arisen in part through the failure of Allen to perform his duties as receiver. Allen employed attorneys to represent him in the action and it was eventually dismissed by the court. In his next account and report Allen asked for an allowance of attorney's fees in the sum of $250 for defense of the action in the Federal Court. His account and application for attorney's fees were approved. Myrtle F. Day gave notice of appeal from the order and contends that attorney's fees for services rendered to Allen individually were improperly allowed. Respondent Allen makes the point that the order is not appealable. No judgment has been rendered in the principal action, nor has any final account of Allen been presented.
An interim order approving an account of receiver is not appealable. Rochat v. Gee, 91 Cal. 355, 27 P. 670; Illinois Trust & Sav. Bk. v. Pacific R. Co., 99 Cal. 407, 33 P. 1132; Title Ins. & Trust Co. v. Calif., etc., Co., 159 Cal. 484, 114 P. 838; Free Gold Mining Co. v. Spiers, 135 Cal. 130, 67 P. 61.
The appeal is dismissed.
SHINN, Presiding Justice.
WOOD and VALLÉE, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: Civ. 18992
Decided: August 07, 1952
Court: District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3, California.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)