259 P. 340 | Cal. Ct. App. | 1927
Respondent claims that an order refusing to set aside judgment and to enter a different judgment on the findings is not appealable.
[1] The notice of motion to vacate judgment, an appeal from the ruling on which is the matter now before this *321
court on appeal, is a somewhat lengthy and somewhat complicated notice of motion, and recites that it is made under the provisions of sections
"The order made after judgment, denying the motion to vacate the judgment and render a judgment consistent, as plaintiff claimed, with the answers of the jury to the question put to it, is clearly an appealable order. By section 963 of the Code of Civil Procedure, an appeal may be taken from any special order made after final judgment. This order is one of that kind. It is an order authorized by section
The sole question ruled on by the court in the case ofWestlervelt v. McCullough,
"An order denying a motion made under section
In the amendment to the opinion in the case of Andreoli v.Hodge,
"Since the decision herein was filed our attention has been called to the fact that since the time of the decisions to which we referred as indicating that there is no right of appeal from an order denying a motion to set aside a judgment and on the findings enter another and different judgment, later decisions have determined that there is such right of appeal. (Condon v.Donohoe,
The motion made in the instant case in the lower court did request, in addition to other relief, the same identical form of relief as was requested in the case of Westervelt v.McCullough, supra.
The motion to dismiss is denied.
Conrey, P.J., and Houser, J., concurred. *323