Cole v. Rush
DOROTHEA COLE v. PAUL RUSH, Defendants FRANK VAN STONE
- Area
- civil
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
THE COURT.
This is an appeal from ~n order sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend. Such an order is nonappealable (Evans v. Dabney (1951), 37 Cal.2d 758, 759 [235 P.2d 604], and authorities there cited; 3 Cal.Jur.2d 476), and this court must, therefore, dismiss the appeal of its own motion. (Collins v. Corse (1936), 8 Cal.2d 123, 124 [64 P.2d 137]; Estate of Brady (1948), 32 Cal.2d 478, 480 [196 P.2d 881]; Rosenberg v. Knesboro (1947), 80 Cal.App.2d 36, 38 [180 P.2d 750]; see, also, 4 Cal.Jur.2d 337, and cases there cited.)
The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
Cites, in this corpus
- Evans v. Dabney L. A. 21940 · 1951-09-26
- Estate of Brady S. F. 17553 · 1948-08-30
- Rosenberg v. Knesboro Civ. 15373 · 1947-05-27
- Collins v. Corse S. F. 15476 · 1936-12-31