Devlin v. Rydberg
Before: Harrison
Synopsis
MOTION to dismiss an appeal from an order of a judge of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco declaring an injunction no longer in force. Frank J. Murasky, Judge.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
HARRISON,J.
—Motion to dismiss the appeal. The superior court granted an injunction in the above-entitled cause, January 8, 1900, restraining the defendant from doing certain acts therein specified, and on January 12, 1901, the Hon. F. J. Murasky, judge of said court, signed a written instrument, wherein, after reciting the granting of the injunction, and that more than twelve months had elapsed since it was granted, and that the action had never been set for trial or tried, and that the defendants had not consented to the continuance of said injunction, it was “ ordered, adjudged, and decreed that said injunction is no longer in force.” This instrument was not filed with the clerk or entered in the minutes of the court, but on January 25th the plaintiff’s attorney filed a certified copy thereof in the clerk’s office, and on February 5th, at his request, it was copied by the clerk into the minutes of the court. February 6th, the defendant gave notice of an appeal from this order. The plaintiff now moves to dismiss the appeal, upon the ground that the entry by the clerk, upon the minutes of the court, of a certified copy of an order is not an order of the court, and upon the further ground that
[325]
an order declaring that an injunction is no longer in force is not an appealable order.
Section 1003 of the Code of Civil Procedure defines an order to be a “direction” of a court or judge, made or entered in writing, and not included in a judgment, and section 939 provides that an appeal may be taken from an order “ granting or dissolving an injunction.” The order appealed from is not a “direction” of the court, nor does it purport to dissolve the injunction previously granted, or, by its terms, to have any effect upon that injunction. It is a mere declaration by the judge that the injunction is no longer in force. That it was not the intention of the judge that it should be considered as an order of the court, may be inferred from the fact that he did not cause it to be entered upon its minutes or filed with the clerk. It also appears upon the face of the writing that he erased from the form presented for his signature the words, “ and the same is hereby vacated and dissolved,” and it is clear from this fact that he did not intend that the injunction previously granted should be dissolved
by reason of
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)