Case Name: In the Matter of the Estate of WILLIAM JOHNSTON, Deceased. JOSEPHINE A. C. JOHNSTON, Appellant, v. ADMINISTRATOR OF ESTATE, Respondent
Court: District Court of Appeal of the State of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1910-10-22
Citations: 14 Cal. App. 376
Docket Number: Civ. No. 769
Parties: In the Matter of the Estate of WILLIAM JOHNSTON, Deceased. JOSEPHINE A. C. JOHNSTON, Appellant, v. ADMINISTRATOR OF ESTATE, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Appellate Reports
Volume: 14
Pages: 376–376

Head Matter:
[Civ. No. 769.
Third Appellate District.
October 22, 1910.]
In the Matter of the Estate of WILLIAM JOHNSTON, Deceased. JOSEPHINE A. C. JOHNSTON, Appellant, v. ADMINISTRATOR OF ESTATE, Respondent.
Estates or Deceased Persons — Decree or Distribution—Appeal— Laches or Appellant—Dismissal.—Where an appeal was taken from a decree of distribution of an estate of a deceased person, and amendments to a proposed bill of exceptions were served more than two years prior to a motion to dismiss the appeal, and no other step was ever taken by the appellant, who failed to appear at the hearing of the motion to dismiss the appeal, it will be dismissed for unwarrantable laches and delay of the appellant, justifying the conclusion that it has been abandoned.
MOTION to dismiss an appeal from a decree of the Superior Court of Sacramento County, distributing the estate of a deceased person. Peter J. Shields, Judge.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
C. M. Beckwith, for Appellant.
White, Miller & McLaughlin, for Respondent.

Opinion:
BURNETT, J.
A decree of distribution in the above-entitled estate was rendered in the superior court of Sacramento county on the fourth day of August, 1908. A notice of appeal therefrom was given October 3, 1908. A proposed bill of exceptions was filed September 14,1908, and amendments thereto proposed by respondent, the administrator of said estate, and served upon appellant on the thirteenth day of October, 1908. No other step has been taken and no other proceeding had in the prosecution of said appeal. Appellant has manifestly been guilty of unwarranted laches and delay in the premises, and the conclusion is justified that the appeal was taken for delay and that it has since been abandoned.
The motion to dismiss, based upon the foregoing and other grounds, is not contested. There was, indeed, no appearance by appellant at the hearing.
The appeal is dismissed.
Chipman, P. J., and Hart, J., concurred.