From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lapique v. Plummer

Court of Appeal of California, Second District
Jun 3, 1914
24 Cal.App. 685 (Cal. Ct. App. 1914)

Opinion

Civ. No. 1303.

June 3, 1914.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Frederick W. Houser, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

J. Lapique, in pro. per., for Appellant.

Shirley E. Meserve, and W. A. Sumner, for Respondent.


The appeal in this case is from an order vacating and setting aside the default of the defendant entered by the clerk — an order made before the entry of any judgment in the action. Appellant's contention, that such order entered by the clerk is to be regarded as a judgment, proceeds upon an entirely erroneous assumption. "Certainly it is not true that an order setting aside a default in an action where no judgment has been entered upon the default, is the subject of a separate appeal. It is in no sense an order after judgment and it is not one of the interlocutory orders enumerated in section 963 of the Code of Civil Procedure." ( Savage v. Smith, 154 Cal. 325, [ 97 P. 821].)

The appeal is dismissed.

James, J., and Shaw, J., concurred.

A petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on July 31, 1914.


Summaries of

Lapique v. Plummer

Court of Appeal of California, Second District
Jun 3, 1914
24 Cal.App. 685 (Cal. Ct. App. 1914)
Case details for

Lapique v. Plummer

Case Details

Full title:JOHN LAPIQUE, Appellant, v. E. R. PLUMMER, Respondent

Court:Court of Appeal of California, Second District

Date published: Jun 3, 1914

Citations

24 Cal.App. 685 (Cal. Ct. App. 1914)
142 P. 107

Citing Cases

Mercantile Banking Co. v. Hernandez

It is in no sense an order made after judgment and is not one of the interlocutory orders enumerated in…