California Supreme Court, 1887

Miller v. Thomas

California Supreme Court · Decided September 24, 1887 · McKinstry, Thornton

73 Cal. 437; 15 P. 55; 1887 Cal. LEXIS 693

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

Banner Life Insurance Company v. Moore (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 2025)
National Council of The United States, Society of St. Vincent de Paul, Inc. v. The Del Norte Council of the Society of St. Vincent De Paul (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 2024)
Staniforth v. Total Wealth Management, Inc. (United States District Court for the Southern District of California 2023)
Smith Micro Software, Inc. v. Reliance Communications, LLC (United States District Court for the Central District of California 2020)
Pamela Day v. Dustin Boyer (United States District Court for the Central District of California 2020)
STJ Enterprise Inc. v. H Group Intl Inc. (United States District Court for the Central District of California 2020)
Long v. McAfee (United States District Court for the Eastern District of California 2019)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

The Court.

— A motion was made to dismiss the appeal herein, which was denied. In deciding the motion, this court said: “ So far as appears to us from the transcript, the judgment might be modified, if necessary or proper, without affecting the right of any party not *438served ” with notice of appeal. “ If, however, it should appear on the final hearing that the necessary parties are not before the court on this appeal, the appeal will be held ineffectual.” (71 Cal. 406.) The cause has since been argued, and upon full examination of the record in the light of the argument, we are of opinion that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, for the reason that there can be no just or appropriate modification of the portions of the interlocutory judgment appealed from, without disturbing the whole judgment, and prejudicially affecting the rights of parties not served with notice of this appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

Thornton, J., did not participate in the decision. McKinstry, J., dissented.

Rehearing denied.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.