Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

83 Cal. 563

Miller v. Richards

California Supreme Court

Decided April 17, 1890

California Supreme Court · decided 1890-04-17

Motion to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County vacating a decree of foreclosure. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1890-04-17

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently January 1973

1 district · 5 state decisions

20189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Beatty, C. J.

¶1J.— This is a motion by intervenor to dismiss the defendant’s appeal, upon the ground that the notice of appeal was not served upon him.

¶2The facts are, that plaintiff obtained a decree of foreclosure upon a mortgage made by defendant, and the mortgaged premises were sold under the decree, plaintiff being the purchaser. The certificate of sale was assigned by plaintiff to the intervenor.

¶3Before expiration of the time for redemption, it was discovered that the decree of foreclosure was ineffectual, by reason of the fact that a grantee of the mortgagor had not been made party to the suit. Thereupon the court, on motion of plaintiff, vacated the decree and sale, for the purpose of allowing an amendment to the complaint, making the grantee of the mortgagor a party defendant.

¶4*564After this order was made, the intervenor was allowed to file his complaint In intervention. After notice of the intervention, defendant attempted to appeal from the order vacating the decree and sale, but he served his notice on the plaintiff only, omitting to serve the intervenor.

¶5We think the motion to dismiss should be granted." From the time of filing his complaint, the intervenor became a party to the action, and his interests would be directly and adversely affected by a reversal of the order appealed from. It was therefore necessary to serve the notice of appeal on him, in order to give this ctmrt jurisdiction. (Code Civ. Proc., secs. 938, 940, and notes to Deering’s edition.)

¶6Appeal dismissed.

¶7Fox, J., Sharpstein, J., and McFarland, J., concurred.

/83/cal/563 · .json · Public domain