Cole v. Rush

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (California)
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
Citation252 P.2d 1,40 Cal.2d 178
PartiesCOLE et al. v. RUSH et al. L. A. 22358.
Decision Date20 January 1953

Page 1

252 P.2d 1
40 Cal.2d 178
COLE et al.
v.
RUSH et al.
L. A. 22358.
Supreme Court of California, in Bank.
Jan. 20, 1953.

John C. Stevenson and Lionel Richman, Los Angeles, for appellants.

Parker, Stanbury, Reese & McGee and A. P. G. Steffes, Los Angeles, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend. Such an order is non-appealable. Evans v. Dabney, 1951, 37 Cal.2d 758, 759, 235 P.2d 604, and authorities there cited; 3 Cal.Jur.2d 476, and this Court must, therefore, dismiss the appeal of its own motion. Collins v. Crose, 1936, 8 Cal.2d 123, 124, 64 P.2d 137; Estate of Brady, 1948, 32 Cal.2d 478, 480, 196 P.2d 881; Rosenberg v. Knesboro, 1947, 80 Cal.App.2d 36, 38, 180 P.2d 750, see also 4 Cal.Jur.2d 337, and cases there cited.

The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 practice notes
  • Daar v. Yellow Cab Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • November 15, 1967
    ...(1955) 43 Cal.2d 856, 860, 279 P.2d 8) and is nonappealable (Evans v. Dabney (1951) 37 Cal.2d 758, 759, 235 P.2d 604; Cole v. Rush (1953) 40 Cal.2d 178, 252 P.2d 1), here the order under examination not only sustains the demurrer, but also directs the transfer of the cause from the superior......
  • Custodio v. Bauer
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • May 24, 1967
    ...to amend. A question arose as to the propriety of proceeding with the appeal on that record. (Code Civ.Proc., § 963; Cole v. Rush (1953) 40 Cal.2d 178, 252 P.2d 1; 3 Witkin, Cal. Procedure, Appeal, §§ 19--20, pp. 2162--2164.) The record was augmented to show a subsequently entered judgment,......
  • Katzenstein v. Chabad of Poway, D066340
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • June 15, 2015
    ...anything—is not appealable. Absent a basis for exercising jurisdiction, we have no choice but to dismiss the appeal. (Cole v. Rush (1953) 40 Cal.2d 178, 252 P.2d 1 [dismissal of appeal from order sustaining demurrer without leave to amend]; Art Movers, Inc. v. Ni West, Inc. (1992) 3 Cal.App......
  • Hohn, Application of
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • August 21, 1964
    ...is not an appeal from the judgment we have no jurisdiction to entertain it, though respondent has not raised the point. (Cole v. Rush, 40 Cal.2d 178, 252 P.2d 1; Estate of Brady, 32 Cal.2d 478, 479-480, 196 P.2d 881; Collins v. Corse, 8 Cal.2d 123, 124, 64 P.2d 137; 4 Cal.Jur.2d, § 498, p. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
25 cases
  • Daar v. Yellow Cab Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • November 15, 1967
    ...(1955) 43 Cal.2d 856, 860, 279 P.2d 8) and is nonappealable (Evans v. Dabney (1951) 37 Cal.2d 758, 759, 235 P.2d 604; Cole v. Rush (1953) 40 Cal.2d 178, 252 P.2d 1), here the order under examination not only sustains the demurrer, but also directs the transfer of the cause from the superior......
  • Custodio v. Bauer
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • May 24, 1967
    ...to amend. A question arose as to the propriety of proceeding with the appeal on that record. (Code Civ.Proc., § 963; Cole v. Rush (1953) 40 Cal.2d 178, 252 P.2d 1; 3 Witkin, Cal. Procedure, Appeal, §§ 19--20, pp. 2162--2164.) The record was augmented to show a subsequently entered judgment,......
  • Katzenstein v. Chabad of Poway, D066340
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • June 15, 2015
    ...anything—is not appealable. Absent a basis for exercising jurisdiction, we have no choice but to dismiss the appeal. (Cole v. Rush (1953) 40 Cal.2d 178, 252 P.2d 1 [dismissal of appeal from order sustaining demurrer without leave to amend]; Art Movers, Inc. v. Ni West, Inc. (1992) 3 Cal.App......
  • Hohn, Application of
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • August 21, 1964
    ...is not an appeal from the judgment we have no jurisdiction to entertain it, though respondent has not raised the point. (Cole v. Rush, 40 Cal.2d 178, 252 P.2d 1; Estate of Brady, 32 Cal.2d 478, 479-480, 196 P.2d 881; Collins v. Corse, 8 Cal.2d 123, 124, 64 P.2d 137; 4 Cal.Jur.2d, § 498, p. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT