Doyle v. Republic Life Insurance Co.

57 P. 667, 125 Cal. 15, 1899 Cal. LEXIS 790
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJune 8, 1899
DocketS. F. No. 1113
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 57 P. 667 (Doyle v. Republic Life Insurance Co.) 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
Doyle v. Republic Life Insurance Co., 57 P. 667, 125 Cal. 15, 1899 Cal. LEXIS 790 (Cal. 1899).

Opinion

HENSHAW, J.

—Plaintiff had obtained judgment against the Republic Life Insurance Company, a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Illinois. The service of the summons was by publication and mailing, and the defendant corporation suffered default. One year less eleven days after entry of this judgment S. D. Ward asked that it be vacated, and that he, as receiver of the defendant corporation under appointment of the circuit court of Illinois, be permitted to answer to the merits of the action. His motion was denied by an order given on May 12, 1896. Thereafter he moved for a new trial of this motion, and by its order of May 8, 1897, the court denied his latter application. He took his appeals from both of these orders after that date.

Neither of these appeals can be entertained. The order of the court refusing Ward leave to answer was not a final judg[16]*16meut, but was an order made after final judgment. His appeal therefrom was not taken within sixty days. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 939, subd. 3.) It must, therefore, be dismissed.

The order denying the motion for a new trial of the petition for leave to answer is not appealable: 1. Because the practice of moving for a new trial of a motion is one neither countenanced nor permitted by our procedure (Code Civ. Proc., secs. 590, 656); and 2. Because a subsequent order refusing to vacate an appealable order, which has been regularly and advisedly made, is not appealable. (Harper v. Hildreth, 99 Cal. 265.)

Both of the appeals are, therefore, ordered dismissed.

Témple, J., and McFarland, J., concurred.

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

Related

Corcoran v. City of Los Angeles
315 P.2d 439 (California Court of Appeal, 1957)
Finkelstein v. Cosgrove
256 P. 608 (California Court of Appeal, 1927)
Ferry v. O'Brien
219 P. 467 (California Court of Appeal, 1923)
Smith v. Questa
207 P. 1036 (California Court of Appeal, 1922)
Godsil v. San Joaquin County Building Trades Council
166 P. 1035 (California Court of Appeal, 1917)
Gray v. Cotton
162 P. 1019 (California Supreme Court, 1917)
Walbridge v. Cousins
83 P. 462 (California Court of Appeal, 1905)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
57 P. 667, 125 Cal. 15, 1899 Cal. LEXIS 790, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doyle-v-republic-life-insurance-co-cal-1899.