Tellefsen v. Key System Transit Lines

California Court of Appeal

Tellefsen v. Key System Transit Lines

187 Cal. App. 2d 44, 9 Cal. Rptr. 299, 1960 Cal. App. LEXIS 1353

California Court of Appeal·Decided December 2, 1960·No. Civ. No. 18797·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

BRAY, P. J.

Plaintiff purports to appeal from an order sustaining without leave to amend defendant’s demurrer to his first amended complaint.

On January 26, 1959, a minute order was entered stating: “The Court being fully advised orders that the demurrer to the complaint be and the same is hereby sustained, without leave to amend.’’ No judgment thereon has been entered.

It is well settled that an order sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend is not an appealable order or a final [45]*45judgment, and that a reviewing court does not have jurisdiction to review an appeal of this type. (Futlick v. F. W. Woolworth Co., 149 Cal.App.2d 296, 298 [308 P.2d 405]; Schmidt v. Townsend, 103 Cal.App.2d 185, 186-187 [229 P.2d 488] ; Brown v. Mayor & City Council, 174 Cal.App.2d 763 [345 P.2d 75] ; see also 3 Within, California Procedure, § 19, p. 2162.)

The purported appeal is dismissed.

Tobriner, J., and Duniway, J., concurred.

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

BRAY, P. J.

Plaintiff purports to appeal from an order sustaining without leave to amend defendant’s demurrer to his first amended complaint.

On January 26, 1959, a minute order was entered stating: “The Court being fully advised orders that the demurrer to the complaint be and the same is hereby sustained, without leave to amend.’’ No judgment thereon has been entered.

It is well settled that an order sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend is not an appealable order or a final [45]*45judgment, and that a reviewing court does not have jurisdiction to review an appeal of this type. (Futlick v. F. W. Woolworth Co., 149 Cal.App.2d 296, 298 [308 P.2d 405]; Schmidt v. Townsend, 103 Cal.App.2d 185, 186-187 [229 P.2d 488] ; Brown v. Mayor & City Council, 174 Cal.App.2d 763 [345 P.2d 75] ; see also 3 Within, California Procedure, § 19, p. 2162.)

The purported appeal is dismissed.

Tobriner, J., and Duniway, J., concurred.

Tellefsen v. Key System Transit Lines, 187 Cal. App. 2d 44, 9 Cal. Rptr. 299, 1960 Cal. App. LEXIS 1353 (Cal. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

187 Cal. App. 2d 44 (Tellefsen v. Key System Transit Lines) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related