Continental Cas. Co. v. Rizzio Truck Co.

217 Cal. App. 2d 771, 32 Cal. Rptr. 132
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedJune 28, 1963
DocketCiv. No. 26317
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 217 Cal. App. 2d 771 (Continental Cas. Co. v. Rizzio Truck Co.) 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
Continental Cas. Co. v. Rizzio Truck Co., 217 Cal. App. 2d 771, 32 Cal. Rptr. 132 (Cal. Ct. App. 1963).

Opinion

217 Cal.App.2d 771 (1963)

CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
RIZZIO TRUCK COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent.

Civ. No. 26317.

California Court of Appeals. Second Dist., Div. Three.

June 28, 1963.

Weingand, Tipton, Kendig & Stockwell and Eugene L. Stockwell, Jr., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Hecker, Dunford & Kenealy and Mark R. McKee for Defendant and Respondent.

FILES, J.

Plaintiff's notice of appeal states that plaintiff appeals "from the judgment of the above captioned court sustaining defendants' demurrer to plaintiff's complaint on the 7th day of December, 1961."

The record on appeal contains a minute order dated December 7, 1961, whereby the demurrer of one defendant was sustained with leave to amend within 10 days. There is no judgment. [1] The order sustaining the demurrer is not appealable, and this court has no choice but to dismiss the appeal. (Curnutt v. Holk, 203 Cal.App.2d 6 [21 Cal.Rptr. 224].)

The appeal is dismissed.

Shinn, P. J., and Ford, J., concurred.

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

Related

Pastore v. County of Santa Cruz CA6
California Court of Appeal, 2016

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
217 Cal. App. 2d 771, 32 Cal. Rptr. 132, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/continental-cas-co-v-rizzio-truck-co-calctapp-1963.