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.
HEYWOOD v. SOOY.
Plaintiff and respondent move to dismiss an appeal by defendant from an alleged nonappealable order. The action is one for a partnership accounting after voluntary dissolution, appointment of a receiver, and determination of all property rights of the interested parties. After findings made, the trial court entered an ‘Amended Interlocutory Decree’ in which it was adjudged that an accounting be had, fixing the interests of the parties in ‘three particular matters of the firm's copartnership business in controversy,’ and finally determining and setting out each one with particularity and the amounts each party is to pay in the accounting, but, as ‘unfinished business of said firm which has yet to be concluded before a final accounting may be had,’ the court reserved these matters ‘until such time and after such proceedings had that the court can make a final determination hereof and a final decree herein.’ Payment by either of the parties of any money, except as in the decree provided, is directed to ‘await the further order of the court.’
We cannot escape the conviction that the decree as entered was not intended to be, and is not, a final decree. The plain reading of the language of the decree leaves no doubt on that question as presented by the appeal. No receiver is appointed, should that be deemed by the trial court to be necessary, and no complete accounting can be had until the matter of the partnership found by the court to be in the state of ‘unfinished business' can be adjusted. A plainer case of an interlocutory decree reserving other matters for future adjudication before the entry of a final decree can hardly arise.
While citation of authority seems unnecessary, we refer to the following: Hollar v. Saline Products, Inc., 43 P.(2d) 273; Gunder v. Gunder, 208 Cal. 559, 282 P. 794; see, also, Security-First Nat. Bank v. Superior Court, 132 Cal. App. 683, 23 P.(2d) 1055.
The appeal of the defendant is dismissed.
WASTE, Chief Justice.
We concur: SHENK, J.; THOMPSON, J.; SEAWELL, J.; LANGDON, J.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: S. F. 15380.
Decided: September 24, 1935
Court: Supreme Court of 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)