From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Parker v. Owen

Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division Two
Feb 5, 1948
83 Cal.App.2d 474 (Cal. Ct. App. 1948)

Opinion

Docket No. 16191.

February 5, 1948.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County refusing to dismiss an action. Thurmond Clarke, Judge. Appeal dismissed on motion.

Kimpton Ellis for Appellant.

Joseph N. Owen for Respondent.


This is a motion to dismiss an appeal from an order of the trial court denying plaintiff's motion to dismiss the action before any evidence was offered.

[1] This is the single question presented for determination:

Is an order denying a motion to dismiss an action before any evidence is offered an appealable order?

This question must be answered in the negative for the reason that an order denying a motion to dismiss an action before any evidence is received is not an appealable order. ( Perry v. Magneson, 207 Cal. 617, 620 [ 279 P. 650]; Andersen v. Superior Court, 187 Cal. 95, 97 [ 200 P. 963]; Garthwaite v. Bank of Tulare, 134 Cal. 237, 243 [ 66 P. 326]; Halsey v. Sears, 90 Cal.App. 306 et seq. [ 265 P. 858]; Forrester v. Lawler, 14 Cal.App. 170, 171 [ 111 P. 284].)

In view of the foregoing rule the appeal must be dismissed. It is so ordered.

Moore, P.J., concurred.


I concur. It should be said, however, that the motion to dismiss ought to have been granted since the answer does not state an affirmative defense.


Summaries of

Parker v. Owen

Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division Two
Feb 5, 1948
83 Cal.App.2d 474 (Cal. Ct. App. 1948)
Case details for

Parker v. Owen

Case Details

Full title:GLADYS L. PARKER, Appellant, v. MARGARET M. OWEN, Respondent

Court:Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division Two

Date published: Feb 5, 1948

Citations

83 Cal.App.2d 474 (Cal. Ct. App. 1948)
189 P.2d 81

Citing Cases

Samuel v. Stevedoring Services

Further, California decisional authority clearly holds that the denial of a dismissal motion may not be…

Obergfell v. Obergfell

However, the order was clearly interlocutory and therefore not appealable. (3 Cal.Jur.2d, Appeal and Error, §…