Court Opinion

ID: 9543077
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:41:50.106571+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:09:38.187937
License: Public Domain

WHITE, P. J.
I dissent. The case of Adams v. Talbott, 20 Cal.2d 415 [126 P.2d 347], relied upon in the majority opinion herein, is not, to my mind, helpful or determinative of the problem presented by the instant proceeding. In the cited case, as the court points out at page 418, both the judgment of June 21, 1939, as well as the order of October 23, 1939, were appealable, and therefore the rule of liberality in the construction of notices of appeal was applicable.
In the case at bar, however, the order “sustaining an objection to the introduction of the evidence upon the ground that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to state a cause of action, ’ ’ and the order ‘‘ increasing the bond on the preliminary injunction” were not appealable (Code Civ. Proc., § 963).
Therefore, no jurisdiction whatever was conferred upon this court by the attempted appeal from the foregoing nonappealable orders. Being without jurisdiction, we have no recourse other than to dismiss it (Sherman v. Standard Mines Co., 166 Cal. 524, 525 [137 P. 249]; 2 Cal.Jur. p. 131, § 15; 2 Cal.Jur., pp. 752, 753; Hughes v. De Mund, 70 Cal.App. 265, 267 [233P. 93]).