Goyhinech v. Goyhinech
Cases that cite this one
21 later published cases cite this decision.
- Continental Building & Loan Ass'n v. Woolf (Cal. Ct. App. 1910)
- People v. Montgomery (Cal. Ct. App. 1942)
- Lizardi v. Marrero (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1924)
- Steinberg v. Jacobs (Cal. Ct. App. 1913)
- Bell v. Solomons (Cal. 1912)
- Title Ins. Trust Co. v. Calif. Etc. Co. (Cal. 1911)
- Gregory v. Gregory (Cal. 1893)
- Pacific Palisades Assn. v. Menninger (Cal. 1933)
- Bryant v. Kelly (Cal. 1928)
- Lizardi v. Marrero (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1924)
- Hernaiz Targa & Co. v. Vivas (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1914)
- Hernaiz Targa & Co. v. Vivas (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1914)
- American Railroad Co. v. Quiñones (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1911)
- Olson v. Mattison (N.D. 1907)
- Kent v. Williams (Cal. 1905)
- Alpers v. Bliss (Cal. 1904)
- Mantel v. Mantel (Cal. 1902)
- Blyth & Fargo Co. v. Swenson (Utah 1897)
- Harper v. Hildreth (Cal. 1893)
- Kubli v. Hawkett (Cal. 1891)
- In re Get Young (Cal. 1891)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
This was an action for divorce. Judgment passed for the plaintiff. After the judgment had been entered, the defendant moved the trial court to set such judgment aside, on the ground that no findings had been made. This motion was denied, and the defendant appeals from the order denying such motion. The plaintiff moves to dismiss this appeal, and we think that the motion should be granted.
The motion was not for a new trial, but was merely to set aside the judgment. And the judgment was itself appealable. It is settled that when a judgment or order is itself appealable the appeal must be taken from such judgment or order, and not from a subsequent order refusing to set it aside. (Larkin v. Larkin, 76 Cal. 323; Tripp v. Santa Rosa, 69 Cal. 632; Reay v. Butler, 69 Cal. 585, 586; Cal. S. R. R. v. S. P. R. R., 65 Cal. 295; Holmes v. McCleary, 63 Cal. 497; Coombs v. Hibberd, 43 Cal. 452; Natoma Water Company v. Parker, 16 Cal. 83; Stearns v. Marvin, 3 Cal. 376.) There are some exceptions to this rule, but the case does not fall within any of them. The
We therefore advise that the appeal from the order refusing to set aside the judgment be dismissed.
Foote, C., and Belcher, C. C., concurred.
For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, the appeal from the order refusing to set aside the judgment is dismissed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.