Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

76 Cal. 323

Larkin v. Larkin

California Supreme Court

Decided May 29, 1888

California Supreme Court · decided 1888-05-29

<p>Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Alameda County, from an order refusing a new trial and dismissing the motion therefor, and from an order refusing to vacate such order.</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion.</p>

Relies on Nash v. Harris · Tripp v. Santa Rosa Street R.R. · Strathern v. Dakin

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1888-05-29

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently March 1911

14 state decisions

701888189019001910decided

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 →

Foote, C.

¶1This is an appeal from a final judgment in divorce proceedings, from an order refusing a new trial and dismissing the motion therefor, and from an order refusing to set aside and vacate the order above mentioned.

¶2As the appellant confesses, there is no record here upon which an appeal from the judgment can be considered.

¶3The order refusing a new trial and dismissing the motion therefor was itself appealable.

¶4It has been often held by this court that it will not take jurisdiction of an appeal taken from an order refusing to set aside an order itself appealable. (Tripp v. Santa Rosa Street R. R. Co., 69 Cal. 632, and cases cited.)

¶5*324So that it alone remains to be determined what course is to be taken as to the appeal from the order refusing a new trial and dismissing the motion therefor. The order appealed from shows that the motion was heard upon affidavits and oral testimony.

¶6There being in the transcript no statement on appeal, no bill of exceptions, and no papers indentifiable as the papers used on the hearing of the motion to dismiss, the validity and regularity of the order of dismissal is not reviewable on appeal. “The presumption is, that the order was properly made, and in the absence of a bill of exceptions or statement on appeal making the motion and order part of the record of the case, that presumption is conclusive.” (Strathern v. Dakin, 63 Cal. 479; citing Nash v. Harris, 57 Cal. 242.)

¶7We therefore advise that the appeal from the judgment and order last made refusing to set aside the order denying a new trial and dismissing the motion therefor be dismissed, and that the order last mentioned be affirmed.

¶8Belcher, C. C., concurred.

The Court.

¶9For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, the appeal from the judgment and order last made refusing to set aside the order denying a new trial and dismissing the motion therefor is dismissed, and order denying a new trial is affirmed.

/76/cal/323 · .json · Public domain