Case Name: ROSENTHAL, FEDER, & CO. et al., Respondents, v. MARCUS LEVY, Assignee, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1887-06-29
Citations: 73 Cal. 9
Docket Number: No. 12016
Parties: ROSENTHAL, FEDER, & CO. et al., Respondents, v. MARCUS LEVY, Assignee, Appellant.
Judges: Patebson, J., and McKjnstey, J., concurred.
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 73
Pages: 9–10

Head Matter:
[No. 12016.
Department One.
June 29, 1887.]
ROSENTHAL, FEDER, & CO. et al., Respondents, v. MARCUS LEVY, Assignee, Appellant.
Insolvency—Order Directing Assignee to Account—Appeal.—An order directing an assignee for the benefit of the creditors of an insolvent debtor to render an account of the estate of the insolvent, as required by section 29 of the Insolvent Act of 1880, is not appealable.
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Nevada County requiring the assignee of an insolvent debtor to file his account. '
The proceeding was brought to compel the appellant, the assignee for the benefit of the creditors of one L. Hyman, an insolvent debtor, to make and file a true account of the estate of the insolvent, under the provisions of sections 29 and 30 of the Insolvent Act of 1880. The assignee appeared in response to an order to show cause issued upon the petition of the respondents, and demurred to the same generally and specially. The demurrer being overruled, the assignee answered, denying that the respondents were creditors of the insolvent. Thereafter the court granted a motion for judgment upon the petition, and made an order requiring the assignee to file an account. From this order the appeal is taken. The further facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Crittenden Thornton, F. H. Merzbach, and A. Burrows, for Appellant.
John Caldwell, and A. D. Mason, for Respondents.

Opinion:
Temple, J.
The order appealed from in this case is in no sense a final order, and is not appealable. Furthermore, it is one the court should have made of its own motion, upon mere suggestion. The assignee was, apparently, in default, as he had not complied with section 29 of the Insolvent Act, which required him to render an account at the expiration of three months.
The assignee cannot at any time be heard to object to an order requiring him to render an account. The court may so order as often as occasion seems to require.
Appeal dismissed.
Patebson, J., and McKjnstey, J., concurred.