Wright v. Wright
WILLIAM B. WRIGHT v. DAISY WRIGHT
- 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.
This is a motion to dismiss the appeal from a judgment, and from an order denying the motion for new trial. Such an order is not appealable. (Code Civ. Proc., see. 963.)
There is nothing on file here other than the moving papers and the certificate of the county clerk, from which it appears that the motion for new trial was denied on April 27, 1940; that notice of its denial was filed on April 29, 1940; that notice of appeal and notice to prepare the transcript were filed on May 8, 1940; that on September 17, 1940, the trial court terminated the proceedings for preparation of transcript; that there are no proceedings pending for the settlement of a bill of exceptions, or transcript on appeal.
*47Under such circumstances the motion must be granted. (Bales v. Metropolitan Casualty Ins. Co., 3 Cal. App. (2d) 43 [38 Pac. (2d) 799] ; Carrasco v. Marcus, 18 Cal. App. (2d) 96 [62 Pac. (2d) 1405]; Olinger v. Pacific Greyhound Lines, 18 Cal. App. (2d) 104 [62 Pac. (2d) 1406].)
The appeal is dismissed.
Barnard, P. J., and Griffin, J., concurred.
Cites, in this corpus
- Olinger v. Pacific Greyhound Lines Civ. No. 2002 · 1936-12-10
- Carrasco v. Marcus Civ. No. 1674 · 1936-12-10
- Bales v. Metropolitan Casualty Insurance Co. Civ. No. 1174 · 1934-12-12
Cited by
- Wright v. Wright Civ. No. 2617 · 1941-02-14