O'Neill

O'Neill v. Hicks

Caution
101 Cal. App. 374·1929 Cal. App. LEXIS 221·281 P. 531
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 21, 1929Docket No. 6246.California488 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Thompson, J.

A complaint seeking to enjoin twenty named defendants and a large number sued by fictitious names from violating certain restrictions, alleged to have been imposed by agreement upon about 100 lots in Hopper & Sons Western Avenue Tract in the city of Los Angeles, was filed in the court below. Eleven of the defendants interposed a general and special demurrer, which was sustained without leave to amend. Thereafter the judge signed a document entitled “Judgment Sustaining Demurrer,” which, after reciting preliminary matters, reads as follows: “The demurrer of defendants to complaint of plaintiffs is sustained without leave to amend.” This is the purported judgment from which the plaintiffs appeal. There is no adjudication that plaintiffs take nothing from the named defendants or that the demurring parties recover their costs or dismissing them from the action. In De La Beckwith v. Superior Court, 146 Cal. 496 [ 80 Pac. 717, 719 ], we read: “An order sustaining a demurrer is not a judgment, and does not have the effect of finally and irrevocably dismissing the demurring party from the action. ‘It may form the basis for rendering a judgment, but it is not itself a judgment’- (Sivers v.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.