Stern & Goodman Investment Co. v. Danziger
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtPreston, J.
In this cause the orders of dismissal are affirmed, but without costs to any party to this action. We exercise this power because upon no possible ground could the appeals be sustained. (Sonoma M. Co. v. National Mag. P. Co., 189 Cal. 433, 434 [208 Pac. 962].)
Respondent bases a motion to dismiss the appeals from said orders upon the claim that the orders are nonappealable under the statute. This contention is erroneous. The orders dismissed the complaints in intervention; hence as to the interveners they are final and appealable. (Dollenmayer v . Pryor, 150 Cal. 1 [87 Pac. 616]; Britt v. East…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Howe v. Key System Transit Co.California Supreme Court · 1926
- Jeffords v. YoungCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
- Dollenmayer v. PryorCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
- Hibernia Savings & Loan Society v. ChurchillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
- Martin v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.California Supreme Court · 1925
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- Estate of WunderleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
- Ferraro v. CamarlinghiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- Johnson v. Hayes Cal Builders, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1963
- Estate LoMastro Ex Rel. LoMastro v. American Family Insurance GroupNevada Supreme Court · 2008
- Owen v. Paramount Productions, Inc.District Court, S.D. California · 1941
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.