HUTCHINSON v. DOW (1956)

District Court of Appeal, First District, Division 1, California.

ESTATE of Edgar Laurence DOW, Deceased. Maxine Patricia HUTCHINSON, Petitioner and Respondent, v. Maxine B. DOW, Individually and as Administratrix with the Will Annexed of the Estate of Edgar Laurence Dow, Deceased, Respondents and Appellants.

No. 17057.

Decided: April 02, 1956

Goldstein, Barceloux & Goldstein, San Francisco, for appellant as administratrix. Erskine, Erskine & Tulley, Morse Erskine, II, San Francisco, for appellant individually. William A. White, Hutchinson & Quattrin, San Francisco, for respondent.

The appeal herein is from an order of September 7, 1955, which is described in our opinion in Dow v. Superior Court, Cal.App., 297 P.2d 30.

Respondent herein has moved to dismiss the appeal upon the asserted ground that the order in question is nonappealable. We hold that those provisions of the order which direct the payment of money or the distribution of property are appealable for the reasons stated in our opinion in No. 16939.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.

FRED B. WOOD, Justice.

PETERS, P. J., and BRAY, J., concur.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

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.

Explore the Network