Crosas v. Gutiérrez
Crosas v. Gutiérrez
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
Mrs. Crosas de Saldana, as a testamentary heir of her
At the hearing of this case for the first time, the respondent presented a motion that the case be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, as the action of the court was not appealable in that it was not, as alleged by the respondent, any of the judgments or orders enumerated in section 295 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 295 provides as follows:
“An appeal may be taken to the Supreme Court from a district court:
“1. From a final judgment in an action or special proceeding commenced in the court in which the same is rendered, within one month after the entry of judgment * * *.
(¡2 * * *_
“3. Prom an order granting or refusing a new trial; from an order granting or dissolving an injunction; from an order refusing to grant or dissolve an injunction; from an order dissolving or refusing to dissolve an attachment; from an order granting or refusing to grant a change of the place of trial; from any special order made after final judgment; and from an interlocutory judgment in actions for partition of real property, within ten days after the order or interlocutory judgment is made and entered on the minutes of the court or filed with the secretary.”
The respondent draws attention to the fact that the application was by way of a motion and the resultant action of the court was styled an order. It is not, however, any one of the orders enumerated in paragraph 3, supra. Nor is it a final judgment, because the final judgment in this kind of a testa
The appeal must be dismissed.
7 7. 7 Appeal dismissed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.