Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

54 Cal. 211

Welsh v. Allen

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1880

California Supreme Court · decided 1880-07-01

Motion to dismiss an appeal from an order substituting the respondent for the appellant, as plaintiff in an action, in the Fifteenth District Court, County of Contra Costa. Dwinelle, J. The facts are stated in the opinion.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1880-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently November 2009

7 state decisions

201880189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Department No. 2, Sharpstein, J.:

¶1The transcript on appeal consists of a notice of motion to have Isaac Levy substituted as plaintiff in the place of appellant Welch, copies of affidavits in support of and in opposition to said motion, the order granting the motion, notice of appeal from that order, undertaking, stipulation as to service of notice of appeal, filing of undertaking, and waiving the printing of *212complaint and answers in the transcript. A motion is made to dismiss the appeal, on the ground, among others, that as it does not appear that the order was made after judgment, no appeal ■lies from it.

¶2Treated in that- light, the order is certainly one from which no appeal will lie. But it is contended on behalf of appellant, that, by whatever name it be called, it is in effect a final judgment as between appellant and respondent. We cannot concur in this view of it. But if we did, another difficulty of equal magnitude would confront us. The transcript before us does not contain a copy of the judgment roll, or óf a bill of exceptions, or of a statement in the case. (Code Civ. Proc. § 950.) If this were an appeal from a final judgment, and we had the judgment roll before us, we could not consider any affidavits, unless they were embodied in a bill of exceptions, or statement settled in due form.

¶3Appeal dismissed.

¶4Thornton, P. J., and Myrick, J., concurred.

/54/cal/211 · .json · Public domain