TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Doyle v. Republic Life Insurance Co.

JOHN T. DOYLE v. REPUBLIC LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY SAMUEL D. WARD, Receiver, et cetera

Doyle v. Republic Life Ins. Co., 57 P. 667 (Cal. 1899)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 8, 1899
Docket
No. S. F. No. 1113
Judges
Henshaw
Citations
57 P. 667125 Cal. 151899 Cal. LEXIS 790
Syllabus
Appeal—Dismissal—Order Refusing to Vacate Default Judgment. An appeal from an order refusing to vacate a judgment by default, being from an order made after final judgment, must be taken within sixty days from the date of the order, and if not so taken must be dismissed. Id.—NONAPPEALABLE OEDER—DENIAL OF New TRIAL OF MOTION.—It ÍS not proper practice to move for a new trial of a motion to vacate a judgment; and the order refusing to vacate the judgment being appealable, a subsequent order refusing to vacate it, or denying a motion for a new trial thereof, is not appeal-able, and an appeal therefrom must be dismissed.
Summary
APPEALS from orders of the Superior Court of San Mateo County, refusing to vacate a judgment by default, and denying a new trial of the motion. George H. Buck, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Henshaw

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

HENSHAW, J.

—Plaintiff had obtained judgment against the Republic Life Insurance Company, a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Illinois. The service of the summons was by publication and mailing, and the defendant corporation suffered default. One year less eleven days after entry of this judgment S. D. Ward asked that it be vacated, and that he, as receiver of the defendant corporation under appointment of the circuit court of Illinois, be permitted to answer to the merits of the action. His motion was denied by an order given on May 12, 1896. Thereafter he moved for a new trial of this motion, and by its order of May 8, 1897, the court denied his latter application. He took his appeals from both of these orders after that date.

Neither of these appeals can be entertained. The order of the court refusing Ward leave to answer was not a final judg *16 meut, but was an order made after final judgment. His appeal therefrom was not taken within sixty days. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 939, subd. 3.) It must, therefore, be dismissed.

The order denying the motion for a new trial of the petition for leave to answer is not appealable: 1. Because the practice of moving for a new trial of a motion is one neither countenanced nor permitted by our procedure (Code Civ. Proc., secs. 590, 656); and 2. Because a subsequent order refusing to vacate an appealable order, which has been regularly and advisedly made, is not appealable. (Harper v. Hildreth, 99 Cal. 265 .)

Both of the appeals are, therefore, ordered dismissed.

Témple, J., and McFarland, J., concurred.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1905: 11917: 21922: 11923: 11927: 11957: 12012: 119052026peak 1917 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Gray v. Cotton162 P. 1019 (Cal. 1917)
  2. Smith v. Questa207 P. 1036 (Cal. Ct. App. 1922)
  3. Ferry v. O'Brien219 P. 467 (Cal. Ct. App. 1923)
  4. Corcoran v. City of Los Angeles315 P.2d 439 (Cal. Ct. App. 1957)
  5. Walbridge v. Cousins83 P. 462 (Cal. Ct. App. 1905)
  6. Godsil v. San Joaquin County Building Trades Council166 P. 1035 (Cal. Ct. App. 1917)

Most recent

  1. People v. PausNo. CF0643-11 (Super. Ct. Guam July 5, 2012)
  2. Corcoran v. City of Los Angeles315 P.2d 439 (Cal. Ct. App. 1957)
  3. Finkelstein v. Cosgrove256 P. 608 (Cal. Ct. App. 1927)
  4. Ferry v. O'Brien219 P. 467 (Cal. Ct. App. 1923)
  5. Smith v. Questa207 P. 1036 (Cal. Ct. App. 1922)
  6. Godsil v. San Joaquin County Building Trades Council166 P. 1035 (Cal. Ct. App. 1917)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Harper v. Hildreth, 33 P. 1103 (Cal. 1893) 51

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list