California Supreme Court, 1915

Rickert v. Zoeger

California Supreme Court · Decided February 18, 1915 · SHAW, J.

146 P. 894; 169 Cal. 399; 1915 Cal. LEXIS 515

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

Ham v. County of Los Angeles (Cal. Ct. App. 1920)
Madsen v. Turlock Irrigation District (Cal. Ct. App. 1943)

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

The action is to recover a sum of money alleged to be due upon an agreement for the sale of a "saloon business" in the city of Los Angeles.

The notice of appeal states that the plaintiff appeals "from the decision of the superior court rendered in said action, whereby the said court sustains defendant's demurrer to plaintiff's fifth amended complaint without leave to amend." The record does not show that any judgment was entered and it does not contain any other notice of appeal.

An order sustaining or overruling a demurrer is not an appealable order. (Moraga v. Emeric, 4 Cal. 308; Moulton v.Ellmaker, 30 Cal. 529; Agard v. Valencia, 39 Cal. 297; Daniel v.Lansdale, 38 Cal. 567; Hibberd v. Smith, 39 Cal. 146; Ashley v.Olmstead, 54 Cal. 618.) This court is therefore without jurisdiction to act upon the so-called appeal and it must be dismissed.

The appeal is dismissed.

Sloss, J., and Angellotti, C.J., concurred. *Page 400

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.