Sherman v. Standard Mines Co.
W. H. A. SHERMAN, Respondent, v. STANDARD MINES COMPANY (A Corporation), Et Al., Defendants; G. H. LEWIS, Appellant
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of Los Angeles County
- Trial judge
- Curtis D. Wilbur
- Outcome
- other — The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Will H. Holcomb, and Chester C.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Shaw (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
SHAW, J.
In the lower court the defendant Lewis moved the court for an order setting aside and vacating a default thereinbefore entered against him by the clerk because of his failure to answer the complaint within the time allowed by a special order of the court. Upon the hearing this motion was denied. No further proceedings have been taken in the case against Lewis. No judgment has been given as to him. Thereupon he filed a notice, stating therein that he “hereby appeals to the supreme court” from the order denying his motion to vacate said default. Upon this notice, treating it as an appeal, he has filed in this court a printed tran *525 script of the complaint in the action and a bill of exceptions containing his notice of motion, the affidavits filed in support thereof, and a recital that the motion was denied.
The plaintiff makes the objection that the order denying the motion to vacate the default is not appealable. The objection is well taken.
(Rauer’s etc. Co.
v. Standley, 3 Cal. App. 44, [84 Pac. 214].) Section 963 of the Code of Civil Procedure enumerates the orders and decisions of the superior court from which an appeal will lie and an order of this character is not among those mentioned. It is proper to say that the complaint shows that the action was begun against a large number of persons and that so far as appears it is still pending in the lower court for further proceedings and has not yet reached final judgment. An attempt to appeal from a nonappealable "order does not give this court jurisdiction or authority to review it.
It is ordered that the proceedings in this court be dismissed.
Angellotti, J., and Sloss, J., concurred.
Cites, in this corpus
- Rauer's Law & Collection Co. v. Standley Civ. No. 192. · 1906-02-08
Cited by
- Pitcher v. Trinidad CA2/2 B345176 · 2026-09-03
- Manlin v. Milner B313253 · 2022-09-07
- Manlin v. Milner CA2/1 B313253 · 2022-08-10
- Jember v. First Nat. Lending Services CA6 H038659 · 2014-06-02
- Doe v. United States Swimming, Inc. No. H036240 · 2011-11-21
- Powers v. City of Richmond S039547 · 1995-05-08
- Woodman v. Ackerman 23703 · 1967-03-22
- Woodman v. Ackerman Civ. No. 23703 · 1967-03-22
- People v. Conley Civ. 23304 · 1966-09-08
- City of Los Angeles v. Schweitzer Civ. 25243 · 1962-02-19
- Efron v. Kalmanovitz Civ. 24243 · 1960-10-05
- Unger v. Los Angeles Transit Lines Civ. 23834 · 1959-05-27
- People v. Olds Civ. 21119 · 1956-03-22
- Bernards v. Grey Civ. 14172 · 1950-05-23
- Seven Up Bottling Co. of Los Angeles, Inc. v. Grocery Drivers Union Local No. 848 Civ. 17610 · 1950-05-18
- Turner v. Follmer Civ. No. 16201 · 1948-04-12
- Turner v. Follmer Civ. No. 16201 · 1948-04-12
- Estate of Hanley v. Hanley L. A. 18316 · 1943-10-29
- Collins v. Corse S. F. 15476 · 1936-12-31
- Strosnider v. Superior Court Civ. 5621 · 1936-11-25
- Union Oil Co. v. Reconstruction Oil Co. L. A. 15050; L. A. 15381 · 1935-10-30
- Hughson v. Superior Court Docket No. 8318. · 1932-02-11
- Long v. Lester Docket No. 332. · 1931-03-16
- Central Savings Bank of Oakland v. Lake Docket No. S.F. 11359. · 1927-06-22