Mayo v. Beber

California Court of Appeal

Mayo v. Beber

343 P.2d 765, 173 Cal. App. 2d 596, 1959 Cal. App. LEXIS 1629

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedSeptember 10, 1959

DocketCiv. 24019

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 343 P.2d 765 (Mayo v. Beber) 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

Mayo v. Beber, 343 P.2d 765, 173 Cal. App. 2d 596, 1959 Cal. App. LEXIS 1629 (Cal. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

NOURSE, J. pro tem. *

This is a motion to dismiss an appeal taken by the plaintiff and appellant Barnette Mayo, from an order denying her motion purportedly made under section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside and vacate a judgment in favor of the defendant. The respondent moves to dismiss the appeal upon the grounds that the motion to vacate the judgment was made upon the same grounds as the motion for new trial, to wit: the disqualification of the trial judge under section 170 subdivision 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that the question of the disqualification of the trial judge is subject to review on an appeal from the judgment which is now pending in division three of this court and that therefore the order here appealed from is not an appealable one.

The record fully supports the respondent’s contention and upon the authority of Litvinuk v. Litvinuk, 27 Cal.2d 38 [162 P.2d 8], the motion to dismiss is granted.

Fourt, Acting P. J., and Lillie, J., concurred.

*

Assigned by Chairman of Judicial Council.

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

NOURSE, J. pro tem. *

This is a motion to dismiss an appeal taken by the plaintiff and appellant Barnette Mayo, from an order denying her motion purportedly made under section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside and vacate a judgment in favor of the defendant. The respondent moves to dismiss the appeal upon the grounds that the motion to vacate the judgment was made upon the same grounds as the motion for new trial, to wit: the disqualification of the trial judge under section 170 subdivision 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that the question of the disqualification of the trial judge is subject to review on an appeal from the judgment which is now pending in division three of this court and that therefore the order here appealed from is not an appealable one.

The record fully supports the respondent’s contention and upon the authority of Litvinuk v. Litvinuk, 27 Cal.2d 38 [162 P.2d 8], the motion to dismiss is granted.

Fourt, Acting P. J., and Lillie, J., concurred.

*

Assigned by Chairman of Judicial Council.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

343 P.2d 765, 173 Cal. App. 2d 596, 1959 Cal. App. LEXIS 1629, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mayo-v-beber-calctapp-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack