Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Leffingwell v. Griffing 29 Cal. 192

← Cases

Leffingwell v. Griffing

29 Cal. 192 Court Cal. English

Contents

Majority

p. 192
H. LEFFINGWELL v. FREDERICK GRIFFING.

Headnote

Order not Appealable.—An appeal does not lie from an order directing a statement on motion for new trial to be settled.
Statement on Appeal from an Orde!r.—If, on appeal from an order made after judgment, the statement contains facts outside the record and affidavit, it should specify the grounds upon which appellant will rely.
Appeal from the District Court,' Fourth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco.
The plaintiff recovered a money judgment in the Court below, and defendant filed a statement on motion for a new trial. Notice was given for a settlement of the statement on
p. 193
a day named, but before the time defendant paid the judgment, and plaintiff’s attorney entered a satisfaction. Neither party appeared at the time named for a settlement of the statement. Defendant’s attorney afterwards gave notice for a settlement of the statement, and both parties appearing, plaintiff’s attorney objected to a settlement on the ground that the motion had been abandoned. The Court overruled the objection.
The other facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Grey & Brandon, for Appellant.
Brooks & Whitney, for Respondent.

This appeal is from an order overruling plaintiff’s objections to defendant’s motion for settlement of a statement on motion for new trial, and ordering said statement to be settled.

The order is not appealable. It was made in the course of proceedings taken with a view to a new trial, and is no more the subject of appeal than the order made in the course of the same proceedings fixing the 13th of February, 1865, as the day for settling the statement.

Further, there is no specification of grounds in the statement accompanying the appeal. The appeal is not based alone upon the affidavit contained in the record, but upon the affidavit aided, by a statement of facts aliunde, and is within the principle of Haggin v. Clark, 28 Cal. 162 .

The appeal is dismissed.

Cases cited