-
I concur in the order denying the motion to dismiss the appeal in this case, and also in the opinion that the decision in Murphy v. Stelling,
138 Cal. 642 , [72 P. 176 ], is directly in point. But I regard that case as merely an application of the more general principle that *Page 109 all orders made in proceedings for a new trial which have the effect of finally disposing of the motion are special orders made after final judgment, and therefore appealable. (Hayne on New Trial, sec. 146; Calderwood v. Peyser,42 Cal. 115 , and cases cited; McDonald v. McConkey,57 Cal. 326 ; Clark v.Crane,57 Cal. 633 ; Griess v. State Investment Co.,93 Cal. 411 , [28 P. 1041]; Stonesifer v. Kilburn,94 Cal. 42 , [29 P. 332]; Sutton v. Symons,97 Cal. 476 , [32 P. 588]; same case,100 Cal. 576 , [35 P. 158]; Symons v.Bunnell,101 Cal. 223 , [35 P. 770]; Kaltschmidt v. Weber,136 Cal. 675 , [69 P. 497 ]; Murphy v. Stelling,138 Cal. 641 , [72 P. 176 ].) This, however, as said in the case last cited, will not apply to a mere refusal of the court to settle the statement in cases where the moving party is by law entitled to have it settled. In such a case there is no order, and, therefore, the only remedy is mandamus.
Document Info
Docket Number: Civ. No. 291.
Citation Numbers: 87 P. 204, 4 Cal. App. 108
Judges: The COURT. —
Filed Date: 7/12/1906
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/12/2023