Hanke v. McLaughlin

California Court of Appeal

Hanke v. McLaughlin

128 P. 772, 20 Cal. App. 204, 1912 Cal. App. LEXIS 113

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedOctober 23, 1912

DocketCiv. No. 1090.

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 128 P. 772 (Hanke v. McLaughlin) 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

Hanke v. McLaughlin, 128 P. 772, 20 Cal. App. 204, 1912 Cal. App. LEXIS 113 (Cal. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

HALL, J.

This purports to be an appeal from a judgment and order “sustaining the demurrer of defendant to plaintiff's petition herein.” The petition was one for a writ of mandate against the defendant as city clerk of the city of Sanger.

The record before us discloses that the court sustained defendant’s demurrer to plaintiff’s petition, but it does not disclose that any judgment, either denying or dismissing the petition, was ever rendered or entered. The notice of appeal in the record purports to be an appeal “from that certain order and judgment . . . sustaining the demurrer of defendant to plaintiff’s petition herein.”

The only order in the record is as follows: “The demurrer to the petition for a writ of mandamus, which said demurrer is on file herein, is argued by respective counsel, and- submitted, and it is by the court ordered that the said 'demurrer be, and it is hereby sustained.” There is no final judgment in the record whatever.

*205 An appeal does not lie from an order either sustaining or overruling a demurrer. The action of the court upon the demurrer can only he reviewed upon an appeal from the final judgment entered in the action or special proceeding. (Moraga v. Emeric, 4 Cal. 308; Moulton v. Ellmaker, 30 Cal. 529; Agard v. Valencia, 39 Cal. 292; Hibberd v. Smith, 39 Cal. 145; Fortain v. Smith, 114 Cal. 494, [46 Pac. 381]; Wood, Curtis & Co. v. Missouri etc. Ry. Co., 152 Cal. 344, [92 Pac. 868]; Litch v. Kerns, 8 Cal. App. 747, [97 Pac. 897]; Code Civ. Proc., secs. 939, 963.) (See, also, Kimple v. Conway, 69 Cal. 71, [10 Pac. 189]; Foley v. Foley, 120 Cal. 33, [65 Am. St. Rep. 147, 52 Pac. 122]; Stebbins v. Larson, 4 Cal. App. 482, [88 Pac. 505].)

As this court has no jurisdiction of the appeal, we must dismiss the appeal. (Pedlar v. Stroud, 116 Cal. 461, [48 Pac. 371]; Bienenfeld v. Fresno Milling Co., 82 Cal. 425, [22 Pac. 1113].)

The appeal is dismissed:

Lennon, P. J., and Kerrigan, J., concurred.

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

HALL, J.

This purports to be an appeal from a judgment and order “sustaining the demurrer of defendant to plaintiff's petition herein.” The petition was one for a writ of mandate against the defendant as city clerk of the city of Sanger.

The record before us discloses that the court sustained defendant’s demurrer to plaintiff’s petition, but it does not disclose that any judgment, either denying or dismissing the petition, was ever rendered or entered. The notice of appeal in the record purports to be an appeal “from that certain order and judgment . . . sustaining the demurrer of defendant to plaintiff’s petition herein.”

The only order in the record is as follows: “The demurrer to the petition for a writ of mandamus, which said demurrer is on file herein, is argued by respective counsel, and- submitted, and it is by the court ordered that the said 'demurrer be, and it is hereby sustained.” There is no final judgment in the record whatever.

*205 An appeal does not lie from an order either sustaining or overruling a demurrer. The action of the court upon the demurrer can only he reviewed upon an appeal from the final judgment entered in the action or special proceeding. (Moraga v. Emeric, 4 Cal. 308; Moulton v. Ellmaker, 30 Cal. 529; Agard v. Valencia, 39 Cal. 292; Hibberd v. Smith, 39 Cal. 145; Fortain v. Smith, 114 Cal. 494, [46 Pac. 381]; Wood, Curtis & Co. v. Missouri etc. Ry. Co., 152 Cal. 344, [92 Pac. 868]; Litch v. Kerns, 8 Cal. App. 747, [97 Pac. 897]; Code Civ. Proc., secs. 939, 963.) (See, also, Kimple v. Conway, 69 Cal. 71, [10 Pac. 189]; Foley v. Foley, 120 Cal. 33, [65 Am. St. Rep. 147, 52 Pac. 122]; Stebbins v. Larson, 4 Cal. App. 482, [88 Pac. 505].)

As this court has no jurisdiction of the appeal, we must dismiss the appeal. (Pedlar v. Stroud, 116 Cal. 461, [48 Pac. 371]; Bienenfeld v. Fresno Milling Co., 82 Cal. 425, [22 Pac. 1113].)

The appeal is dismissed:

Lennon, P. J., and Kerrigan, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 P. 772, 20 Cal. App. 204, 1912 Cal. App. LEXIS 113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hanke-v-mclaughlin-calctapp-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack