Cornic v. Stewart

California Supreme Court

Cornic v. Stewart

179 Cal. 242

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 12, 1918

DocketL. A. No. 4567

StatusPublished

This text of 179 Cal. 242 (Cornic v. Stewart) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cornic v. Stewart, 179 Cal. 242 (Cal. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

RICHARDS, J., pro tem.

In this case no respondent’s brief has been filed, but a cursory examination of the record discloses that the only appeal before us is an attempted appeal from two orders of the trial court sustaining a demurrer to the plaintiff’s first amended complaint and denying the plaintiff’s application for leave to file a second amended complaint. Neither of these orders are appealable orders and there is no appeal from the judgment. It follows that the appeals must be dismissed, and it is so ordered.

Sloss, J., and Victor E. Shaw, J., pro tem., concurred.

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

RICHARDS, J., pro tem.

In this case no respondent’s brief has been filed, but a cursory examination of the record discloses that the only appeal before us is an attempted appeal from two orders of the trial court sustaining a demurrer to the plaintiff’s first amended complaint and denying the plaintiff’s application for leave to file a second amended complaint. Neither of these orders are appealable orders and there is no appeal from the judgment. It follows that the appeals must be dismissed, and it is so ordered.

Sloss, J., and Victor E. Shaw, J., pro tem., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 Cal. 242, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cornic-v-stewart-cal-1918.