Linne v. Union Central Life Insurance

California Court of Appeal

Linne v. Union Central Life Insurance

6 P.2d 521, 119 Cal. App. 490, 1932 Cal. App. LEXIS 190

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJanuary 2, 1932

DocketDocket No. 7004.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 6 P.2d 521 (Linne v. Union Central Life Insurance) 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

Linne v. Union Central Life Insurance, 6 P.2d 521, 119 Cal. App. 490, 1932 Cal. App. LEXIS 190 (Cal. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

BISHOP, J., pro tem. tem.-—[1]

We are of the opinion that this appeal must be dismissed because it is taken from a. nonappealable order. Appellant’s default having been entered, it moved to have the default set aside because of its excusable neglect. This motion was denied and judgment entered. Appellant then moved to have the judgment set aside, relying on the same grounds it had advanced on the previous motion. From the order denying the motion to set aside the judgment it appeals, now urging, not only that the court abused its discretion in refusing to vacate the default judgment, but also that the judgment was void because granting relief in excess of that prayed for in the complaint.

*491 As on an appeal from the judgment itself appellant could have fully presented these two points, it cannot appeal from the order refusing to set aside that judgment. (Mantel v. Mantel, (1902) 135 Cal. 315 [67 Pac. 758]; Bell v. Solomons, (1912) 162 Cal. 105 [121 Pac. 377]; Reynolds v. Reynolds, (1923) 191 Cal. 435 [216 Pac. 619]; Hall v. Imperial Water Co., (1926) 200 Cal. 77 [251 Pac. 912].)

The appeal is dismissed.

Conrey, P. J., and Houser, J., concurred.

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

BISHOP, J., pro tem. tem.-—[1]

We are of the opinion that this appeal must be dismissed because it is taken from a. nonappealable order. Appellant’s default having been entered, it moved to have the default set aside because of its excusable neglect. This motion was denied and judgment entered. Appellant then moved to have the judgment set aside, relying on the same grounds it had advanced on the previous motion. From the order denying the motion to set aside the judgment it appeals, now urging, not only that the court abused its discretion in refusing to vacate the default judgment, but also that the judgment was void because granting relief in excess of that prayed for in the complaint.

*491 As on an appeal from the judgment itself appellant could have fully presented these two points, it cannot appeal from the order refusing to set aside that judgment. (Mantel v. Mantel, (1902) 135 Cal. 315 [67 Pac. 758]; Bell v. Solomons, (1912) 162 Cal. 105 [121 Pac. 377]; Reynolds v. Reynolds, (1923) 191 Cal. 435 [216 Pac. 619]; Hall v. Imperial Water Co., (1926) 200 Cal. 77 [251 Pac. 912].)

The appeal is dismissed.

Conrey, P. J., and Houser, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 P.2d 521, 119 Cal. App. 490, 1932 Cal. App. LEXIS 190, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/linne-v-union-central-life-insurance-calctapp-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack