gno.law

Long v. Lester

California Court of Appeal · Docket No. 332. · 1931-03-16 · Published · 297 P. 564 · 112 Cal. App. 595 · 1931 Cal. App. LEXIS 1115

CHARLES E. LONG Et Al., Respondents, v. H. D. LESTER Et Al., Appellants

Proceeding
appeal from orders
Trial court
Superior Court of Tulare County
Trial judge
J. A. Allen
Outcome
dismissed — Appeal dismissed.
Area
civil
Panel
Marks (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 — Marks

MARKS, J.

In the court below respondents made a motion to strike out certain portions of an answer filed by appellants, which motion was granted. Appellants made a motion to vacate and set aside the foregoing order and another motion for an order giving them leave to file an amended answer. Both of the latter motions were denied. They have filed a notice of appeal in which they attempt to appeal from the foregoing orders. No judgment has been rendered in the court below.

Section 963 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides when an appeal may be taken. By the terms of this section no right of appeal is given from orders such as those of which appellants complain. These orders áre not appeal-able. (California Portland Cement Co.

v. Boone, 181 Cal. 35 [183 Pac. 447] ;

Cleland v. Walbridge, 78 Cal. 358 [20 Pac. 730] ;

Tedford v. San Diego etc. Co., 79 Cal. App. 505 [249 Pac. 1093];

Cuddahy v. Gragg, 46 Cal. App. 578 [189 Pac. 721].) “An attempt to appeal from a nonappealable order does not give this court jurisdiction or authority to review it.” (Sherman v. Standard Mines Co., 166 Cal. 524 [137 Pac. 249].)

It is ordered that the proceedings in this court be dismissed.

Barnard, P. J., and Jennings, J., concurred.

Cites, in this corpus