Learned v. Board of Education

WARD, J.

Motions by respondents to dismiss appeals from orders directing a further accounting and the continuance of an investigation into the books of defendant board, following the rendition and entry, upon stipulation of the respective [parties, of a decree establishing that judgment be entered forthwith, with interest from the date thereof, upon an amount to be thereafter ascertained from an, accounting. Such motions are made upon the ground that an order, of this character is a nonappealable interlocutory order, and that the appeal should be dismissed as being prematurely brought. The actions are in

mandamus,

to compel the appellant board to pay to respondents, assignees of a number of teachers, an alleged salary deficiency. The above appeals, with certain variations as to dates, are similar.

After a partial computation by an accountant judgments were entered that defendants pay plaintiffs the amounts as determined, and partial satisfactions were filed. It appeared, however, that additional amounts might be due the assignors and an order was therefore made directing the accountant to make a further and final computation, applying certain principles established by the order.

[563]

Defendants, while admitting that an interlocutory order is nonappealable, base the present appeal upon the theory that the order referred to was appealable as a special order made after final judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 963, subd. 2;

Nuckolls

v.

Bank of California,

10 Cal. (2d) 266 [74 Pac. (2d) 264, 114 A. L. R. 708].) This leaves one issue to be disposed of, namely, was the order directing the entry of judgment, based on computations to be ascertained, a final, or merely an interlocutory, order? If any confusion existed

(Middleton

v.

Finney,

214 Cal. 523 [6 Pac. (2d) 938] ;