Arnold v. Howell

California Court of Appeal

Arnold v. Howell

199 P.2d 16, 88 Cal. App. 2d 526, 1948 Cal. App. LEXIS 1495

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedNovember 16, 1948

DocketCiv. No. 13723

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 199 P.2d 16 (Arnold v. Howell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arnold v. Howell, 199 P.2d 16, 88 Cal. App. 2d 526, 1948 Cal. App. LEXIS 1495 (Cal. Ct. App. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

Appellant sued to set aside an order for the adoption of his daughter by respondent Alethea Anne Howell (a maternal aunt of the child) and Harry Edward Howell, her husband.

A general and special demurrer to the first amended complaint by the respondents Edith M. Williams, Harry Edward Howell and Alethea Anne Howell was sustained without leave to amend. Respondent State Department of Social Welfare did not demur, but filed an answer.

No judgment was entered in the case.

Within 60 days after the order had been made sustaining the demurrer, appellant filed a notice of appeal “from the order . . . sustaining the demurrer to the First Amended Complaint without leave to amend and from the whole thereof. ’ ’

An order sustaining a demurrer is not within the cases enumerated by section 963, Code of Civil Procedure, and, therefore, is not appealable. (Bryant v. Kelly, 203 Cal. 721 [265 P. 817] ; 2 Cal.Jur. pp. 156-157, and 1 Cal.Jur. 10-yr. Supp. p. 290; 2 McKinney’s Digest, “Appeal and Error,” § 40, pp. 141-142.) The ruling is reviewable on appeal from the judgment itself. (2 Cal.Jur. p. 157.)

Accordingly the appeal must be dismissed and it is so ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI