General
OHLANDT et al. v. JOOST et al.
6 Cal. Unrep. 1053 Pac. 213·Supreme Court of California·1898·CA
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
OHLANDT et al. v. JOOST et al.
S. F. No. 1442;
May 3, 1898.
53 Pac. 213.
Appeal.—Where a Motion to Dismiss an Appeal Involves an examination into its merits, the motion will be denied,' with leave to renew it on submission of the cause.
APPEAL from Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco.
Action by one Ohlandt and others against one Joost and others. On motion to dismiss an appeal. Denied.
Mullany, Grant & Cushing for appellants; A. F. Morrison for respondents.
Cited and followed in Re Sharp’s Estate, 10 Cal. App. 3, 100 Pac. 1071, where it is said a motion to dismiss on appeal will be denied when the whole controversy is based on the question of the jurisdiction of the probate court, and its determination would involve the merits.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
It appearing that a determination of the motion to dismiss the appeal in this ease involves the necessity of an examination into the merits of the appeal, it is ordered that said motion be, and it is hereby, denied, with leave to the respondents to renew such motion in submitting said cause upon the merits.