Case Name: KATE BEKINS, Appellant, v. MINNIE DIETERLE and WILLIAM DIETERLE, Respondents
Court: District Court of Appeal of the State of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1907-05-25
Citations: 5 Cal. App. 586
Docket Number: Civ. No. 372
Parties: KATE BEKINS, Appellant, v. MINNIE DIETERLE and WILLIAM DIETERLE, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Appellate Reports
Volume: 5
Pages: 586–586

Head Matter:
[Civ. No. 372.
Second Appellate District.
May 25, 1907.]
KATE BEKINS, Appellant, v. MINNIE DIETERLE and WILLIAM DIETERLE, Respondents.
Appeal prom Part op Judgment—Vacation op Temporary Injunction—Time por Appeal—Motion to Dismiss.—An appeal taken from that part of a final judgment wherein it is adjudged “that the temporary injunction heretofore issued herein to the sheriff of the county be and the same is hereby vacated, ” is not taken from an order within the meaning of section 939 of the Code of Civil Procedure; and it will not be dismissed on the ground that it was not taken within sixty days.
MOTION to dismiss an appeal from part of a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. W. P. James, Judge.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
J. Marion Brooks, and Henry E. Willis, for Appellant.
E. W. Freeman, and A. D. Laughlin, for Respondent.

Opinion:
SHAW, J.
Motion to dismiss an appeal from that portion of the judgment wherein it was adjudged "that the temporary injunction heretofore issued herein to the sheriff of said county be and the same is hereby dissolved and vacated."
The appeal was not taken within sixty days from the entry of this judgment, and upon this ground respondent insists that the same should be dismissed. The judgment was not an order within the meaning of section 939 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the motion to dismiss is denied.
Allen, P. J., and Taggart, J., concurred.