Majority
p. 253MARTIN v. TRAVERS et al.
Headnote
Ho appeal will lie from an order refusing to dissolve an injunction, nor from an orderchanging the place of trial.
The appeal should have been taken from the order granting an injunction.
Appeal from the Superior Court of the City of San Eran cisco.
Minor S. Martin, the proprietor of a store on the corner of Clay and Kearny streets, in San Francisco, procured an injunction from the Court below against the defendants, proprietors and drivers of cabs, restraining them from using the street in front of his store as a stand for their hacks and cabs. The defendants made a motion to dissolve the injunction, which being denied, they appealed from the order of the Court refusing to dissolve the injunction.
C. M. Brosnan for Appellants.
Cook & Fenner for Respondent.
delivered the opinion of the Court—Murray, C. J., concurring.
This is an appeal from an order of the Superior Court of San Francisco refusing to dissolve an injunction. The three hundred and forty-seventh section of the Practice Act specifies the cases in which appeals are allowed from the orders and judgments of the District Courts and the Superior Court of San Francisco. No appeal is allowed from an order refusing to dissolve an injunction, nor from an order changing the place of trial. The appeal should be taken from the order granting the injunction.
Appeal dismissed.