Opinion
Appeal from the District Court, Fourth Judicial District, city and county of San Francisco.
The plaintiff recovered a money judgment in the Court below, and defendant filed a statement on motion for a new trial. Notice was given for a settlement of the statement on a day named, but before the time defendant paid the judgment, and plaintiff's attorney entered a satisfaction. Neither party appeared at the time named for a settlement of the statement. Defendant's attorney afterwards gave notice for a settlement of the statement, and both parties appearing, plaintiff's attorney objected to a settlement, on the ground that the motion had been abandoned. The Court overruled the objection.
COUNSEL:
Grey & Brandon, for Appellant.
Brooks & Whitney, for Respondent.
JUDGES: Shafter, J.
OPINION
SHAFTER, Judge
This appeal is from an order overruling plaintiff's objections to defendant's motion for settlement of a statement on motion for new trial, and ordering said statement to be settled.
The order is not appealable. It was made in the course of proceedings taken with a view to a new trial, and is no more the subject of appeal than the order made in the course of the same proceedings fixing the 13th of February, 1865, as the day for settling the statement.
Further, there is no specification of grounds in the statement accompanying the appeal. The appeal is not based alone upon the affidavit contained in the record, but upon the affidavit aided by a statement of facts aliunde, and is within the principle of Haggin v. Clark, 28 Cal. 162.
The appeal is dismissed.