Harmon v. Harmon

[249]

VALLES, J.

This is a companion ease to

Harmon

v.

Harmon, ante,

p. 245, 2d Civ. No. 24322.

In a proceeding under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act an order was made on May 17, 1956, directing defendant to pay specified amounts for the support of his minor child. On appeal the order was affirmed. On the going down of the remittitur defendant moved the court for an order dismissing the proceeding. The motion was denied. That order is the subject of the appeal in the companion case, 2d Civ. No. 24322.

After the reporter’s transcript in the latter appeal had been prepared, defendant requested corrections. Included in the request was one that all argument made on the hearing of the motion to vacate the order of May 17, 1956, be included in the reporter’s transcript. The court granted some of the requests but denied the request that all argument be included. Defendant has appealed from that part of the order denying his request that all argument be included in the reporter’s transcript.

The order is not appealable. It is an order made after judgment. In order that a special order made after judgment, as contemplated by subdivision 2 of section 963 of the Code of Civil Procedure, be appealable, such order must affect the judgment in some manner or bear some relation to it either by way of enforcing it or staying its execution.

(Imperial Beverage Co.

v.

Superior Court,

24 Cal.2d 627, 632 [150 P.2d 881].) “It is not sufficient that the order determine finally for the purposes of further proceedings in the trial court some distinct issue in the case; it must direct the payment of money by appellant or the performance of an act by or against Mm.”

(Sjoberg

v.

Hastorf,