Percy v. Allen

119 Cal. App. 106
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedDecember 9, 1931
DocketCiv. No. 561
StatusPublished

This text of 119 Cal. App. 106 (Percy v. Allen) 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
Percy v. Allen, 119 Cal. App. 106 (Cal. Ct. App. 1931).

Opinion

MARKS, J.

Appellants gave the following notice of appeal in the court below: “Notice is hereby given that the plaintiffs do hereby appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of California from the order of the above entitled court made and entered on Monday, the 29th day of December, 1930, sustaining defendant’s demurrer to the first amended complaint of the plaintiff above named, and from the whole thereof.” As the case is within the appellate jurisdiction of this court it was transferred here for decision.

Under the provisions of section 963' of the Code of Civil Procedure, an appeal cannot be taken from an order sustaining a demurrer. An attempted appeal from such an order fails to give any jurisdiction to the appellate court to entertain it and must be dismissed. (Bryant v. Kelly, 203 Cal. 721 [265 Pac. 817]; Tyler v. City Council of Huntington Park et al., 97 Cal. App. 724 [276 Pac. 355]; O’Neill V. Hicks, 101 Cal. App. 374 [281 Pac. 531].)

Appeal dismissed.

Barnard, P. J., and Jennings, J., concurred.

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

Related

O'Neill v. Hicks
281 P. 531 (California Court of Appeal, 1929)
Tyler v. City Council of Huntington Park
276 P. 355 (California Court of Appeal, 1929)
Bryant v. Kelly
265 P. 817 (California Supreme Court, 1928)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
119 Cal. App. 106, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/percy-v-allen-calctapp-1931.