Legal Opinion

Thomas v. Lee

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 8, 1949No. Civ. 16830PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMcCOMB, J.

— Respondent (defendant), Hair Experts, Incorporated, moves to dismiss this appeal from an order, (1) vacating and setting aside the default, and (2) quashing service of summons upon said respondent, for the reason that such an order is not appealable.

This proposition is tenable and is governed by these rules:(1) An order granting a motion to set aside a default before a judgment has been entered is a nonappealable order. (Turner v. Follmer, 84 Cal.App.2d 815 [191 P.2d 777].)(2) An order quashing service of summons is likewise a nonappealable order. Cf., Saroff v. Saroff, 66 Cal.App. 2d 330,…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Rosenberg Bros. & Co. v. Curtis Brown Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1923
  2. Fritz v. RiggsOregon Supreme Court · 1919
  3. State ex rel. Fowler v. MooreNevada Supreme Court · 1922
  4. Wade v. WadeOregon Supreme Court · 1918
  5. Carstens & Earles, Inc. v. Leidigh & Havens Lumber Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1898

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Kneeland v. Ethicon Suture Laboratories, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1952
  2. Davis v. TaliaferroCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
  3. Bolon v. PenningtonCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1966
  4. Humphrey v. BewleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2021

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API