Artucovich

We are interpreting plaintiff’s notice of appeal as effecting an appeal from the summary judgment filed and entered November 23, 1965, after the trial court had made an order granting defendant Michael Arizmendiz’ motion for such a judgment. The notice of appeal, addressed to defendant “Michael Arizmendiz, et al., and to Clausen & Gilliland, his attorneys,” bids them take notice that he “hereby intends to appeal from Order of Summary Judgment. ...” Had he appealed from the order and from the judgment, we would doubtless dismiss the appeal from the order on the authority of Integral Land Corp. v. Anderson (1944) 62 Cal.App.2d 770 [ 145 P.2d 364 ] ; Chil son v. P. G. Industries (1959) 174 Cal.App.2d 613, 616 [ 344 P.2d 868, 870 ] ; Sinks v. Merrill (1963) 222 Cal.App.2d 200, 205 [ 35 Cal.Rptr. 113, 116 ] ; and Saunders v. New Capital for Small Businesses, Inc. (1964) 231 Cal.App.2d 324, 326 [ 41 Cal.Rptr. 703, 705 ].) But, although technically, the order is not appealable, in those cases where the appeal is only from the order but where there is a judgment to which it may be applied, that course is followed and the appeal is honored as one taken from the judgment (in obedience to…