CECIL DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE v. GALLO ET AL (1943)

District Court of Appeal, Third District, California.

CECIL, DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, v. GALLO ET AL.

Civ. 6934.

Decided: February 15, 1943

Edward T. Taylor, of Modesto, for appellants. Earl Warren, Atty. Gen., Wm. T. Sweigert, Asst. Atty. Gen., W. R. Augustine, Deputy Atty. Gen., and Jefferson E. Peyser, of San Francisco, for respondent.

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 transcript 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.

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network