Nason v. Shinjo

California Court of Appeal

Nason v. Shinjo

237 P. 559, 72 Cal. App. 530, 1925 Cal. App. LEXIS 516

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedMay 6, 1925

DocketDocket No. 2958.

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 237 P. 559 (Nason v. Shinjo) 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

Nason v. Shinjo, 237 P. 559, 72 Cal. App. 530, 1925 Cal. App. LEXIS 516 (Cal. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

FINCH, P. J.

This is a motion to dismiss the appeal herein. The case was tried before the court without a jury and judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff for a sum alleged to be due under a lease. On motion of one of the *531 defendants the court ordered a new trial. From this order the plaintiff has appealed. The motion to dismiss is made upon the ground that the order is not appealable. An appeal lies from an order granting a new trial only “in an action or proceeding tried by a jury where such trial by jury is a matter of right.” (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 963, subd. 2; Estate of Waters, 181 Cal. 584, 586 [185 Pac. 951]; In re Baird’s Estate, 195 Cal. 59 [231 Pac. 744]; McGoldrick v. Visalia Midway Oil Co., 58 Cal. App. 280 [208 Pac. 334].)

Appellant relies upon section 663a of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides for an appeal from an order granting a motion, authorized by section 663, to set aside and vacate a judgment “based upon findings of fact made by the court, or the special verdict of a jury,” and to enter “another and different judgment.” The motion here in question was not of the character mentioned in that section, but it was a motion for a new trial.

The appeal is dismissed.

Hart, J., and Plummer, J., concurred.

Appellants’ petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreñie court on July 2, 1925.

All the Justices concurred.

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

FINCH, P. J.

This is a motion to dismiss the appeal herein. The case was tried before the court without a jury and judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff for a sum alleged to be due under a lease. On motion of one of the *531 defendants the court ordered a new trial. From this order the plaintiff has appealed. The motion to dismiss is made upon the ground that the order is not appealable. An appeal lies from an order granting a new trial only “in an action or proceeding tried by a jury where such trial by jury is a matter of right.” (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 963, subd. 2; Estate of Waters, 181 Cal. 584, 586 [185 Pac. 951]; In re Baird’s Estate, 195 Cal. 59 [231 Pac. 744]; McGoldrick v. Visalia Midway Oil Co., 58 Cal. App. 280 [208 Pac. 334].)

Appellant relies upon section 663a of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides for an appeal from an order granting a motion, authorized by section 663, to set aside and vacate a judgment “based upon findings of fact made by the court, or the special verdict of a jury,” and to enter “another and different judgment.” The motion here in question was not of the character mentioned in that section, but it was a motion for a new trial.

The appeal is dismissed.

Hart, J., and Plummer, J., concurred.

Appellants’ petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreñie court on July 2, 1925.

All the Justices concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 P. 559, 72 Cal. App. 530, 1925 Cal. App. LEXIS 516, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nason-v-shinjo-calctapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack