Futlick v. F. W. Woolworth Co.

Decision Date19 March 1957
Citation308 P.2d 405,149 Cal.App.2d 296
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesMorris FUTLICK, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. F. W. WOOLWORTH CO., a corporation, Robert Kirkwood, California State Board of Equalization, Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 5361.

Morris Futlick, Fresno, in pro. per.

Adrian A. Kragen and Sho Sato, Berkeley, for respondent F. W. Woolworth Co.

Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., James E. Sabine, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Ernest P. Goodman and Harry W. Low, Deputies Atty. Gen., for respondents Robert C. Kirwood and State Bd. of Equalization.

MUSSELL, Justice.

This is an action in which plaintiff in his first amended complaint for injunctive relief sought to enjoin the F. W. Woolworth Company from collecting City of Fresno and State of California sales taxes in excess of the amount authorized by the Sales and Use Tax Law of California, Revenue & Taxation Code, § 6001 et seq., and by a Fresno city ordinance. Plaintiff also sought to enjoin Robert C. Kirkwood, the controller, and the State Board of Equalization from authorizing or recommending the use of a particular sales tax reimbursement schedule. A general demurrer to the original complaint was filed by defendant F. W. Woolworth Company alleging that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and this demurrer was sustained with leave to amend. Following the filing of plaintiff's first amended complaint, defendants Woolworth Company, the State Board of Equalization and Robert C. Kirkwood, Controller, filed demurrers to the amended complaint on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against them or any of them. This demurrer was sustained without leave to amend by order of the court on March 22, 1956. On March 23, 1956, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from this order. On April 6, 1956, the trial court entered and filed a judgment that plaintiff take nothing by his action and that judgment be entered for defendants Robert C. Kirkwood and the State Board of Equalization. On April 13, 1956, judgment was entered dismissing the amended complaint and ordering judgment for F. W. Woolworth Company. No appeal was taken by plaintiff from either of these judgments.

Appellant's notice of appeal was filed prior to the entry of the judgment herein and there is no reference in the notice of appeal to a judgment from which an appeal may be taken. The notice specifically states that the '* * * (p)laintiff in the above-entitled action hereby appeals to the Supreme Court of the State of California from the order sustaining the Demurrer of defendants, without leave to amend and entered in the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Garat v. City of Riverside
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 31 d2 Dezembro d2 1991
    ...liberally construed to provide for a hearing on the merits of those issues presented for appellate review (Futlick v. F.W. Woolworth Co. (1957) 149 Cal.App.2d 296, 298, 308 P.2d 405), we agree with the City's position that its ineffective attempt to appeal from the trial court's statements ......
  • A. L. Castle, Inc. v. San Benito County
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 3 d3 Junho d3 1964
    ...(1960), 55 Ca.2d 54, 59-60, 10 Cal.Rptr. 161, 358 P.2d 681; Witkin, Cal.Procedure Supp. pp. 762-763.) In Futlick v. F.W. Woolworth Co. (1957), 149 Ca.App.2d 296, 308 P.2d 405, the notice of appeal stated that the appeal was from the order sustaining demurrer without leave to amend, and the ......
  • Schisler v. Mitchell
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 25 d5 Setembro d5 1959
    ...and a formal judgment must be entered against the unsuccessful party from which the appeal can be taken. Futlick v. F. W. Woolworth Co., 149 Cal.App.2d 296, 308 P.2d 405; Lavine v. Jessup, 48 Cal.2d 611, 311 P.2d 8. Quite commonly judgments entered upon demurrers are denominated 'Judgment o......
  • Beazell v. Schrader
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 16 d1 Julho d1 1962
    ...to review an appeal of this type. (Tellefsen v. Key System Transit Lines, 187 Cal.App.2d 44, 9 Cal.Rptr. 299; Futlick v. F. W. Woolworth Co., 149 Cal.App.2d 296, 298, 308 P.2d 405; Schmidt v. Townsend, 103 Cal.App.2d 185, 186-187, 229 P.2d 488; see also 3 Witkin, Cal.Procedure, § 19, p. The......
  • 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