Cecil v. Gallo

134 P.2d 497, 57 Cal. App. 2d 145, 1943 Cal. App. LEXIS 158
California Court of Appeal·Decided February 15, 1943·No. Civ. No. 6934·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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

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

134 P.2d 497 (Cecil v. Gallo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Potter v. Richards
282 P.2d 113 (California Court of Appeal, 1955)