General

ELLEDGE R. PENLAND, Appellant, v. NATHAN GOLDEN et al., Respondents

107 Cal. App. 2d 256·District Court of Appeal of the State of California·1951·CA

Brief incoming

Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.

Opinion

[Civ. No. 18357. Second Dist., Div. One. Nov. 5, 1951.] ELLEDGE R. PENLAND, Appellant, v. NATHAN GOLDEN et al., Respondents. Elledge R. Penland, in pro. per., for Appellant. Major & Tenner and Jack Tenner for Respondents. [MAJORITY — HANSON, J. pro. tem.] HANSON, J. pro. tem. This is an appeal from an order sustaining a demurrer to a complaint with leave to amend. As an appeal does not lie from such an order, but only from a judgment entered thereon we are without jurisdiction to review the case on its merits. (Cornic v. Stewart, 179 Cal. 242 [176 P. 164].) Accordingly, we are required on our own motion to dismiss the appeal. Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction. White, P. J., and Doran, J., concurred.