Hagan v. Fairfield

ASHBURN, J.

Summary judgment in favor of defendant was ordered and later entered in this action. Plaintiff appealed “from Motion for Summary Judgment granted as to Joseph W. Fairfield, only, of the 1st day of February, 1961.” That was the date of the minute order granting motion “for entry of summary judgment in favor of defendant Fairfield. ’ ’ The judgment was signed and filed on February 17, 1961, and entered on February 23, 1961.

Plainly this is an attempted appeal from the minute order. No such appeal will lie and the court acquired no jurisdiction to review the action of the court with respect to summary judgment.

(Bank of America

v.

Oil Well Supply Co., 12

Cal.App.2d 265, 271 [55 P.2d 885];

Gardenswartz

v.

Equitable etc. Soc.,

23 Cal.App.2d Supp. 745, 754 [68 P.2d 322];

Shea

v.

Leonis,

29 Cal.App.2d 184, 190 [84 P.2d 277] ;

Integral Land Corp.

v.

Anderson,

62 Cal.App.2d 770, 771 [145 P.2d 364] ;

Martelli

v.

Pollock,

162 Cal.App.2d 655, 661 [328 P.2d 795] ;

Chilson

v.

P. G. Industries,

174 Cal.App.2d 613, 616-617 [344 P.2d 868].

Plaintiff has also appealed from an order of March 9, 1961, denying his motion to tax costs. By that motion he sought to strike from defendant’s cost bill an item of $46.65 representing the cost of the deposition of plaintiff which was taken by defendant. Appellant’s argument is that defendant Fairfield initially appeared through attorneys Ethelyn F. Black and Max H. Gewirtz and no substitution or association of counsel had been made prior to the taking of the deposition, at which time neither attorney of record was present but Mr. Fairfield (himself an attorney) appeared and took the deposition over plaintiff’s objection; that this was improper and hence no cost item should be allowed. Plaintiff moved to suppress the deposition and the motion was denied; that ruling would be reviewable upon an appeal from the judg