History
  • No items yet
midpage
Cecil v. Gallo
57 Cal. App. 2d 145
Cal. Ct. App.
1943
Check Treatment
THE COURT.

Respondent brings this cause before us by way of motion to dismiss the appeal taken by appellants from an order striking out certain portions of defendants’ answer to plaintiffs’ first amended complaint. The clerk’s *146transcript does not disclose that a final judgment has been entered.

On previous occasions this court has had before it similar questions. See Jordan v. Associated Discount Corp., 10 Cal.App.2d 96 [51 P.2d 1108], and Couch v. McGregor, 19 Cal.App.2d 633 [66 P.2d 159]. We find nothing in the present case to take it out of the well established rule that no appeal lies from such order. (Tedford v. San Diego Electric Ry. Corp., 79 Cal.App. 505 [249 P. 1093]; § 963, Code Civ. Proc.)

Respondent’s motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed.

Case Details

Case Name: Cecil v. Gallo
Court Name: California Court of Appeal
Date Published: Feb 15, 1943
Citation: 57 Cal. App. 2d 145
Docket Number: Civ. No. 6934
Court Abbreviation: Cal. Ct. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.