Boole

Plaintiff sought to recover under two policies of insurance issued by the defendants, covering chartered freight on the oil barge “Pinta,” which was sunk in San Francisco Bay. The jury found that the barge was not such a constructive total loss as to entitle the plaintiff to recover under the terms of the policies, and returned a verdict in his favor for expenses incurred by him in raising the barge, but against him for the other sums asked. Judgment was duly entered. A motion for a new trial was made by plaintiff and denied.

The judgment on the verdict was entered June 19, 1914. Appeal therefrom was not taken until October 15, 1919. On the same day there was taken an appeal from the order denying the motion for a new trial, which was made on September 15, 1919.

In this court the parties have proceeded upon the theory that" the proper appeal to be considered is that taken from the' order denying the motion for a new trial. We think not. The case falls squarely within the ruling of a recent decision of the supreme court, wherein it was held on facts identical with those presented in the ease at bar that the only appeal to be considered was the appeal from the judgment. On the…