From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wenborn v. Boston

Supreme Court of California
Oct 1, 1863
23 Cal. 321 (Cal. 1863)

Opinion

         Appeal from the District Court, Fourth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco.

         COUNSEL:

         David Calderwood, for Appellants.

          Crockett, Page, and Tevis, for Respondents.


         JUDGES: Crocker, J. delivered the opinion of the Court. Cope, C. J. and Norton, J. concurring.

         OPINION

          CROCKER, Judge

         This is an appeal from an order denying a motion for leave to intervene, made by Calderwood and wife. The respondents contend that no appeal lies from such an order. The appellants reply, that as to them it is a final judgment. Sec. 336 of the Practice Act specifies the cases in which an appeal may be taken, and an order of this kind is not included among them. Nor can it properly be said to be included in the terms " final judgment," used in that section. The remedy of the appellants is by an appeal from the final judgment when rendered.

         The appeal is dismissed.


Summaries of

Wenborn v. Boston

Supreme Court of California
Oct 1, 1863
23 Cal. 321 (Cal. 1863)
Case details for

Wenborn v. Boston

Case Details

Full title:WENBORN v. BOSTON et al.--CALDERWOOD et al., Intervenors

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Oct 1, 1863

Citations

23 Cal. 321 (Cal. 1863)

Citing Cases

Thorpe v. North Moneta Etc. Water Co.

( Dollenmayer v. Pryor, 150 Cal. 1, [ 87 P. 616]; People v. Pfeiffer, 59 Cal. 90; Donner v. Palmer, 45 Cal.…

Stich v. Dickinson

         Insisted: First--That the appeal being from an interlocutory order, or judgment, denying the prayer…