Evans v. Dabney
| Decision Date | 26 September 1951 |
| Citation | 235 P.2d 604,37 Cal.2d 758 |
| Parties | EVANS et al. v. DABNEY et ux. L. A. 21940. |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
C. Paul Du Bois and John E. Sisson, Los Angeles, for appellants.
Dolley, Knight, Woods & Hightower and Roy P. Dolley, all of Los Angeles, for respondents.
Plaintiffs, trustees under an inter vivos trust created March 24, 1930, brought this action for declaratory relief against Clifford R. Dabney and his wife, trustors and beneficiaries under the trust. Defendants answered, cross-complained, and moved to add other parties as cross-defendants. Plaintiffs demurred to the answer and cross-complaint. The trial court by minute order denied the motion to add parties, sustained the demurrer to the cross-complaint without leave to amend, and sustained the demurrer to the answer without leave to amend as to the defense of the statute of limitations. No judgment on the issues raised by the complaint and answer appears to have been entered. Defendants have noticed appeals from (1) the minute order insofar as it denies leave to bring in new parties as cross-defendants and sustains the demurrer to parts of defendants' answer, and (2) an ensuing judgment decreeing solely 'that cross-complainants take nothing by this action against cross-defendants and that said cross-defendants recover their costs.' We have concluded that the orders and judgment are not appealable and, therefore, the purported appeals must be dismissed.
It is settled that an order sustaining a demurrer is not appealable. (See People v. Adamson (1949), 33 Cal.2d 286, 288, 201 P.2d 537, and cases cited in 2 Cal.Jur., Appeal and Error, § 26, p. 156; 1 Cal.Jur., Ten Year Supp., pp. 289 et seq.; and Secondary Pocket Part.) And it has been held that an order denying a motion to bring in new cross-defendants was not appealable where the persons sought to be brought in were not parties, were not served, and did not appear, because the order adjudicated nothing as between defendants-cross-complaints and the persons sought to be brought in. (Kennedy v. Owen (1948), 85 Cal.App.2d 517, 520, 193 P.2d 141.) Defendants do not claim that the minute order denying their motion to bring in new cross-defendants is a final, or any, adjudication in favor of these persons who are not parties. Defendants argue that the order denying their motion, and the judgment that they take nothing by their cross-complaint, should be appealable because the controversy as to which plaintiffs seek declaratory relief and the matters which defendants wish tried in their cross-action all concern administration of the same trust and should be tried together. This amounts to nothing more than an argument that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Daar v. Yellow Cab Co.
...the final judgment in the case (Berri v. Superior Court (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 ......
-
Westamerica Bank v. Mbg Industries, Inc.
...Henderson (1944) 25 Cal.2d 375, 378-381, 153 P.2d 945; Sjoberg v. Hastorf (1948) 33 Cal.2d 116, 118, 199 P.2d 668; Evans v. Dabney (1951) 37 Cal.2d 758, 760, 235 P.2d 604; Fleuret v. Hale Construction Co. (1970) 12 Cal.App.3d 227, 230, 90 Cal.Rptr. Appellant's attempt to apply the one final......
-
Fierro v. Landry's Rest. Inc.
...under the one final judgment rule an order in part sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend is not appealable. (Evans v. Dabney (1951) 37 Cal.2d 758, 759, 235 P.2d 604 ). However, the death knell doctrine is an exception to the one final judgment rule. (Baycol , at p. 757, 122 Cal.Rptr.......
-
Weinstock v. Eissler
...from the ensuing judgment. (Carley v. City of Santa Rosa (1957) 154 Cal.App.2d 214, 215, 315 P.2d 905; see also Evans v. Dabney (1951) 37 Cal.2d 758, 759, 235 P.2d 604; 3 Witkin, Cal.Procedure, p. 2162.) The attempted appeal from the above minute order must be dismissed. We review the proce......