From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McFarland v. Mott

Court of Appeal of California, First District, Division Two
Apr 26, 1932
123 Cal.App. 79 (Cal. Ct. App. 1932)

Opinion

Docket No. 8398.

April 26, 1932.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. J.A. Smith, Judge Presiding. Appeal dismissed.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Carey Gorfinkel and Maurice R. Carey for Appellant.

Knight, Boland Christin and Charles A. Christin for Respondent.


In this action for an accounting of the rents, issues and profits of certain real property, the trial court entered its judgment as follows: "That plaintiff is entitled to an accounting from the defendant, and to recover from the defendant, with interest, all the rents, issues and profits of said property and from the sales thereof in excess of the sums disbursed by defendant for plaintiff's account . . . and that a reference be had to determine such rents, issues, profits and amounts, and that James V. Farley be and he is hereby appointed as referee to ascertain and report the same to this court, for confirmation." Defendant appeals from said judgment.

[1] As indicated in Middleton v. Finney, 214 Cal. 523 [78 A.L.R. 1104, 6 P.2d 938], at page 525, uncertainty may have previously existed as to whether such judgment was appealable as a "final judgment" within the meaning of subdivision 1 of section 963 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court, however, considered the question in Middleton v. Finney, supra, and Gunder v. Gunder, 208 Cal. 559 [ 282 P. 794], and the question is no longer an open one. Such judgment is not appealable, as it is not a "final judgment" within the meaning of that section.

The appeal is dismissed.

Nourse, P.J., and Sturtevant, J., concurred.

A petition for a rehearing of this cause was denied by the District Court of Appeal on May 26, 1932, and an application by appellant to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on June 24, 1932.


Summaries of

McFarland v. Mott

Court of Appeal of California, First District, Division Two
Apr 26, 1932
123 Cal.App. 79 (Cal. Ct. App. 1932)
Case details for

McFarland v. Mott

Case Details

Full title:ELTA F. McFARLAND, Respondent, v. MAUDE R. MOTT, Appellant

Court:Court of Appeal of California, First District, Division Two

Date published: Apr 26, 1932

Citations

123 Cal.App. 79 (Cal. Ct. App. 1932)
11 P.2d 18

Citing Cases

Wesley N. Taylor Co. v. Russell

Hollar v. Saline Products, Inc., 3 Cal.2d 80, 81 [ 43 P.2d 273]: "The decision in the Gunder case has been…

Hollar v. Saline Products, Inc.

The decision in the Gunder case has been consistently followed by this court and by the District Court of…