
    In re SWEET’S ESTATE.
    No. 15,000;
    March 17, 1892.
    29 Pac. 249.
    Appeal.—A Motion to Dismiss an Appeal on the Ground that the transcript has not been filed within the time prescribed by the supreme court rules will be denied, where the certificate of the clerk of the trial court on which such motion is based does not conform to supreme court rule 4.
    
    APPEAL from Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco.
    In the matter of the estate of Taatemi Sweet, deceased. On motion to dismiss an appeal from a decree of distribution. Motion denied.
    Dunne & McPike for appellant; Timothy J. Lyons and W. A. Stuart for respondent.
    
      
      Rule 4 requires the certificate to show the amount or character of the judgment, the date of its rendition, the fact and date of the filing of the notice of appeal, together with the date of service thereof on the adverse party, and the character of the evidence by which such service appears; the fact and date of filing and undertaking on appeal, and that the same is in due form; the fact and the time of the settlement of the bill of exceptions and the statement on appeal, if there be any; and also that the appellant has received a duly certified transcript, or that he has not requested the clerk to certify to a correct transcript of the record, or, if he has made such request, that he has not paid the fees therefor, if the same have been demanded.
    
   PER CURIAM.

This is a motion to dismiss an appeal from a decree of distribution, upon the ground that the transcript has not been filed within the time prescribed by the rules of this court. A motion to dismiss an appeal upon this ground must be based upon a certificate of the clerk of the trial court, certifying the facts required by rule 4 of this court. The certificate relied upon in this ease does not meet the requirements of the rule. Let the motion to dismiss the appeal be denied without prejudice.  