gno.law

Nason v. Shinjo

California Court of Appeal · Docket No. 2958. · 1925-05-06 · Published · 237 P. 559 · 72 Cal. App. 530 · 1925 Cal. App. LEXIS 516

W. R. NASON Et Al., Appellants, v. HARRY M. SHINJO, Respondent

Area
civil
Panel
Finch (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 — Finch

FINCH, P. J.

This is a motion to dismiss the appeal herein. The case was tried before the court without a jury and judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff for a sum alleged to be due under a lease. On motion of one of the *531 defendants the court ordered a new trial. From this order the plaintiff has appealed. The motion to dismiss is made upon the ground that the order is not appealable. An appeal lies from an order granting a new trial only “in an action or proceeding tried by a jury where such trial by jury is a matter of right.” (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 963, subd.

2; Estate of Waters, 181 Cal. 584, 586 [185 Pac. 951];

In re Baird’s Estate, 195 Cal. 59 [231 Pac. 744];

McGoldrick v. Visalia Midway Oil Co., 58 Cal. App. 280 [208 Pac. 334].)

Appellant relies upon section 663a of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides for an appeal from an order granting a motion, authorized by section 663, to set aside and vacate a judgment “based upon findings of fact made by the court, or the special verdict of a jury,” and to enter “another and different judgment.” The motion here in question was not of the character mentioned in that section, but it was a motion for a new trial.

The appeal is dismissed.

Hart, J., and Plummer, J., concurred.

Appellants’ petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreñie court on July 2, 1925.

All the Justices concurred.

Cites, in this corpus

Cited by