gno.law

Mayo v. Beber

California Court of Appeal · Civ. 24019 · 1959-09-10 · Published · 173 Cal. App. 2d 596 · 343 P.2d 765 · 1959 Cal. App. LEXIS 1629

BARNETTE MAYO, Appellant, v. JOSEPH BEBER, Respondent

Proceeding
appeal from an order
Trial court
Superior Court of Los Angeles County
Outcome
other — Smith and Joan H.
Area
civil
Panel
John T. Nourse (author)

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion — Nourse

NOURSE, J. pro tem.

* This is a motion to dismiss an appeal taken by the plaintiff and appellant Barnette Mayo, from an order denying her motion purportedly made under section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside and vacate a judgment in favor of the defendant. The respondent moves to dismiss the appeal upon the grounds that the motion to vacate the judgment was made upon the same grounds as the motion for new trial, to wit: the disqualification of the trial judge under section 170 subdivision 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that the question of the disqualification of the trial judge is subject to review on an appeal from the judgment which is now pending in division three of this court and that therefore the order here appealed from is not an appealable one.

The record fully supports the respondent’s contention and upon the authority of Litvinuk v. Litvinuk, 27 Cal.2d 38 [162 P.2d 8], the motion to dismiss is granted.

Fourt, Acting P. J., and Lillie, J., concurred.

* Assigned by Chairman of Judicial Council.

Cites, in this corpus

Cited by