Majority
p. 699[S. F. No. 4335. In Bank. February 12, 1906.] LOUISE MATTHAI, Appellant, v. GEORGE E. KENNEDY, Administrator etc., Respondent.
Headnote
Appeal—Order Dismissing Action—Entry upon Minutes—Running op Time—Dismissal op Appeal.—An order dismissing an action entered upon the minutes of the court, as provided in section 581 of the Code of Civil Procedure, being declared by the statute to be “effective for all purposes," is in its nature a final judgment; and from the date of such entry the time for appeal therefrom begins to run j and an appeal taken more than six months thereafter, though taken within six months after entry of a subsequent judgment of dismissal by the clerk, must be dismissed.MOTION to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Alameda County dismissing an action. F. B. Ogden, Jndge.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Louise Matthai, and Clara S. Foltz, for Appellant.
Dudley Kinsell, for Respondent.
Plaintiff's action was dismissed on August 26, 1904, an order to that effect being entered upon the minutes of the court, as provided by section 581 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Subsequently, upon the twenty-third
p. 700
day of February, 1905, the clerk entered a judgment of dismissal. Plaintiff’s appeal was taken within six months from the last-named date, but more than six months from the entry of the minute order. Defendant moves to dismiss the appeal upon this ground, and the motion must be granted. It is well settled by our decisions that the entry of the order of dismissal in the minute-book of the court, being declared by the statute to be “effective for all purposes,” is in its nature a final judgment, and from the date of that entry the time within which an appeal may be taken begins to run (Marks v. Keenan, 140 Cal. 33 , [ 73 Pac. 751 ]; Pacific Pav. Co. v. Vizelich, 141 Cal. 4 ,. [ 74 Pac. 352 ]; Swortfiguer v. White, 141 Cal. 579 , [ 75 Pac. 172 ].)
As this appeal was not taken within the time limited by law, it must be dismissed; and it is so ordered.
Cases cited
- Marks v. Keenan 140 Cal. 33 p. 700
- Pacific Paving Co. v. Vizelich 141 Cal. 4 p. 700