Court Opinion

ID: 9573704
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:57:53.557389+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:42:28.988486
License: Public Domain

SHENK, J.
Judgment was entered in this action on July 12, 1939, in favor of the plaintiff. On July 18, 1939, the defendants filed a notice of motion to vacate and set aside the judgment and to enter a new and different judgment, on the ground that the conclusions of law were incorrect and erroneous and not consistent with or supported by the findings of fact. The motion was denied and the defendants appealed from the order denying the same. They also appealed from an order denying their motion for new trial.
The motion to dismiss is made on the grounds, (1) that an appeal does not lie from an order denying a motion for a new trial and (2) that an appeal does not lie from an order *251denying a motion to set aside a judgment when the grounds of such motion existed prior to the entry of the judgment. And it is stated that such grounds existed in this case.
The order denying the motion for a new trial was not appealable and the appeal therefrom should be dismissed.
In support of her motion to dismiss the appeal from the order denying the motion to vacate, the plaintiff relies on the well-established rule that an appeal will not lie from an order refusing to vacate a judgment if the grounds upon which the party sought to have the same vacated existed before the entry of the judgment and were available on appeal from the judgment. The rule is stated in Lawson v. Guild, 215 Cal. 378 [10 Pac. (2d) 459], Estate of Siemers, 202 Cal. 424 [261 Pac. 298], Reynolds v. Reynolds, 191 Cal. 435 [216 Pac. 619], and numerous other cases to like effect.
But the rule and cases relied on by the plaintiff have no application to the appeal now under consideration. The motion to vacate was made pursuant to section 663 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which specifies as the sole ground on such a motion, “Incorrect or erroneous conclusions of law not consistent with or not supported by the findings of fact.” A specific and separate appeal from an order made on a motion under that section is accorded the aggrieved party by section 663a of the same code and the decisions construing that section. Appeals from orders made under section 663 are set apart from and are made an exception to the rule relied on by the plaintiff. (California Delta Farms v. Chinese American Farms, 201 Cal. 201 [255 Pac. 1097].) This subject is fully discussed in our opinion in the case just cited and that case is sufficient authority for the denial of the second part of the plaintiff’s motion.
The appeal from the order denying a new trial is dismissed. The motion to dismiss the appeal from the order denying the motion to vacate is denied.
Waste, C. J., Curtis, J., Edmonds, J., Gibson, J., and Houser, J., concurred.