Cecil v. Gallo

California Court of Appeal

Cecil v. Gallo

134 P.2d 497, 57 Cal. App. 2d 145, 1943 Cal. App. LEXIS 158

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedFebruary 15, 1943

DocketCiv. No. 6934

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 134 P.2d 497 (Cecil v. Gallo) 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

Cecil v. Gallo, 134 P.2d 497, 57 Cal. App. 2d 145, 1943 Cal. App. LEXIS 158 (Cal. Ct. App. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

Respondent brings this cause before us by way of motion to dismiss the appeal taken by appellants from an order striking out certain portions of defendants’ answer to plaintiffs’ first amended complaint. The clerk’s [146]*146transcript does not disclose that a final judgment has been entered.

On previous occasions this court has had before it similar questions. See Jordan v. Associated Discount Corp., 10 Cal.App.2d 96 [51 P.2d 1108], and Couch v. McGregor, 19 Cal.App.2d 633 [66 P.2d 159]. We find nothing in the present case to take it out of the well established rule that no appeal lies from such order. (Tedford v. San Diego Electric Ry. Corp., 79 Cal.App. 505 [249 P. 1093]; § 963, Code Civ. Proc.)

Respondent’s motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed.

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

THE COURT.

Respondent brings this cause before us by way of motion to dismiss the appeal taken by appellants from an order striking out certain portions of defendants’ answer to plaintiffs’ first amended complaint. The clerk’s [146]*146transcript does not disclose that a final judgment has been entered.

On previous occasions this court has had before it similar questions. See Jordan v. Associated Discount Corp., 10 Cal.App.2d 96 [51 P.2d 1108], and Couch v. McGregor, 19 Cal.App.2d 633 [66 P.2d 159]. We find nothing in the present case to take it out of the well established rule that no appeal lies from such order. (Tedford v. San Diego Electric Ry. Corp., 79 Cal.App. 505 [249 P. 1093]; § 963, Code Civ. Proc.)

Respondent’s motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 P.2d 497, 57 Cal. App. 2d 145, 1943 Cal. App. LEXIS 158, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cecil-v-gallo-calctapp-1943.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack