Penland v. Golden

California Court of Appeal · Civ. No. 18357 · 1951-11-05 · Published · 107 Cal. App. 2d 256 · 236 P.2d 823 · 1951 Cal. App. LEXIS 1892

ELLEDGE R. PENLAND v. NATHAN GOLDEN

Area: civil
Panel: Lloyd T. Hanson (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 — Hanson

HANSON, J. pro. tem.

This is an appeal from an order sustaining a demurrer to a complaint with leave to amend. As an appeal does not lie from such an order, but only from a judgment entered thereon we are without jurisdiction to review the case on its merits. (Cornic v. Stewart, 179 Cal. 242 [176 P. 164].) Accordingly, we are required on our own motion to dismiss the appeal.

Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

White, P. J., and Doran, J., concurred.

Cites, in this corpus

Cornic v. Stewart L. A. No. 4567. · 1918-11-12

Cited by

Carley v. City of Santa Rosa Civ. 9208 · 1957-10-04