Case Name: H. S. HADSALL, Respondent, v. FRED H. CASE, FRANK CASE and HENRY W. HINZE, Respondents. MICHAEL M. FERNANDEZ, Intervenor, Appellant
Court: District Court of Appeal of the State of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1911-03-04
Citations: 15 Cal. App. 541
Docket Number: Civ. No. 927
Parties: H. S. HADSALL, Respondent, v. FRED H. CASE, FRANK CASE and HENRY W. HINZE, Respondents. MICHAEL M. FERNANDEZ, Intervenor, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Appellate Reports
Volume: 15
Pages: 541–542

Head Matter:
[Civ. No. 927.
Second Appellate District.
March 4, 1911.]
H. S. HADSALL, Respondent, v. FRED H. CASE, FRANK CASE and HENRY W. HINZE, Respondents. MICHAEL M. FERNANDEZ, Intervenor, Appellant.
Appeal—Order Sustaining Demurrers to Complaint in Intervention —Nonappealable Order — Dismissal.—An order sustaining demurrers to a complaint in intervention is not appealable, and a purported appeal therefrom must be dismissed.
Id.—Proper Review op Order Sustaining Demurrer.—While an order sustaining a demurrer is not appealable, the ruling thereon may be reviewed upon appeal from the judgment.
Id.—Rule Applicable to Pleadings in Intervention.—The rules applicable to pleadings in general apply with equal force to pleadings in intervention.
Id.—Order Sustaining Demurrer to Complaint in Intervention Without Leave to Amend — Judgment Essential to Appeal.— Where an order was made sustaining demurrers to a complaint in intervention, without leave to amend, judgment against the intervenor should have followed, from which he could immediately appeal and have such order reviewed thereon.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County sustaining demurrers to a complaint in intervention. Z. B. West, Judge.
Harker, Overmyer & Seymour, for Appellant.
Scarborough & Forgy, and Williams & Rutan, for Plaintiff-Respondent.
F. 0. Daniels, and Hunsaker, Britt & Fleming, for Defendants-Respondents.

Opinion:
SHAW, J.
By leave of court, Michael M. Fernandez filed his complaint in intervention in the above-entitled action. A demurrer interposed thereto was sustained; whereupon, within the time granted for so doing, he filed 'an amended complaint in intervention, to which both plaintiff and defendants interposed demurrers. The several demurrers were sustained without leave to amend, and the purported appeal is from the order sustaining the demurrers.
An appeal does not lie from an order sustaining a demurrer, but such ruling may be reviewed on an appeal from the judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 939; Ashley v. Olmstead, 54 Cal. 616; Agard v. Valencia, 39 Cal. 292.) The rules applicable to pleadings in general apply with equal force to pleadings in intervention. The demurrers interposed to the complaint of the intervenor raised an issue of law, which, upon trial, by sustaining the demurrers, the court determined in favor of the parties so demurring. Judgment against the intervenor, as in other cases where a demurrer to a complaint is sustained without leave to amend, should have followed, from which, inasmuch as to him it was a final determination of the case, he could have prosecuted his appeal at once and thus have the order of which he complains reviewed.
The purported appeal must be dismissed, and it is so ordered.
AUen, P. J., and James, J., concurred.