Cornic v. Stewart
176 P. 164, 179 Cal. 242, 1918 Cal. LEXIS 727
Opinion
In this case no respondent's brief has been filed, but a cursory examination of the record discloses that the only appear 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.
*Page 243Sloss, 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
Cornic v. Stewart, 176 P. 164, 179 Cal. 242, 1918 Cal. LEXIS 727 (Cal. 1918).
176 P. 164 (Cornic v. Stewart) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Financial Corp. of America v. Wilburn
189 Cal. App. 3d 764 (California Court of Appeal, 1987)
Tu-Vu Drive-In Corp. v. Davies
426 P.2d 505 (California Supreme Court, 1967)
Collins v. City & County of San Francisco
247 P.2d 362 (California Court of Appeal, 1952)
Penland v. Golden
236 P.2d 823 (California Court of Appeal, 1951)
Randall v. Beber
225 P.2d 291 (California Court of Appeal, 1950)
Kline v. Beauchamp
84 P.2d 194 (California Court of Appeal, 1938)
Rinaldo v. Superior Court
59 P.2d 868 (California Court of Appeal, 1936)
Martinsen v. Ford Motor Co.
35 P.2d 1034 (California Court of Appeal, 1934)
Christensen v. Lucerne Holding Co.
25 P.2d 261 (California Court of Appeal, 1933)
Hurley v. Lake County
19 P.2d 26 (California Court of Appeal, 1933)
Sturgeon v. City of Hawthorne
289 P. 229 (California Court of Appeal, 1930)
In Re Estate of Rawson
225 P. 474 (California Court of Appeal, 1924)