Macnevin v. Macnevin

63 Cal. 186, 1883 Cal. LEXIS 402
California Supreme Court·Decided February 21, 1883·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This was an action for divorce. Pending proceedings in the case, the court below from time to time made orders requiring the defendant to pay to the plaintiff several sums of money for alimony and counsel fees. Those orders were made enforcible by executions, but they were never enforced, and the court after it had heard the cause upon the merits decided in favor of the defendant; and on the 22d of January, 1879, ordered “that plaintiff’s prayer for a decree of divorce be denied, and that defendant have judgment for costs.” After the making of this order, on motion of defendant’s counsel all the orders formerly made granting to the plaintiff alimony and counsel fees were vacated and set aside by an order made by the court on December 15, 1879. From this order the plaintiff appeals as from an order made after final judgment. But there is no final judgment: the record only shows an order for judgment; hence the order of December 15, 1879, is not an order after final judgment, and is not appealable. (Schaeffer v. The French Savings & Loan Society, 7 Pac. C. L. J. 155; Lake v. King, 16 Nev. 217.)

Appeal dismissed.

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

Macnevin v. Macnevin, 63 Cal. 186, 1883 Cal. LEXIS 402 (Cal. 1883).

63 Cal. 186 (Macnevin v. Macnevin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Carpenter v. Golden State Securities Co.
88 P.2d 194 (California Court of Appeal, 1939)
Neblett v. Neblett
56 P.2d 969 (California Court of Appeal, 1936)
Crane v. First National Bank of McHenry
144 N.W. 96 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1913)
In re the Estate of Cook
19 P. 431 (California Supreme Court, 1888)
Mace v. O'Reilley
11 P. 721 (California Supreme Court, 1886)
Sharon v. Sharon
7 P. 456 (California Supreme Court, 1885)