Weisman

The respondents herein petitioned the superior court for an order to compel the Board of Building and Safety Commissioners of the City of Los Angeles and the chief inspector of that board to issue a permit to erect a building on certain real property situated in said city. Appellants, although given legal notice, made no appearance by answer or demurrer. However, at the time of the hearing on the petition, through their attorney, the city attorney of Los Angeles, they appeared in open court and stated that they had no defense. The court then duly viewed the papers, received evidence on the hearing of the alternative writ which had previously been issued, and gave judgment for the issuance of a peremptory writ as prayed. This hearing took place on the eleventh day of August, 1925, and the court announced its judgment at that time. The formal judgment was not filed until the nineteenth day of the same month. In the meantime, and on the seventeenth day of August, appellants served and filed their notice of appeal “from the judgment, order and decree, and from the whole thereof rendered in the above-entitled court on the 11th day of August, 1925, in favor of the plaintiffs in said…

I concur in the judgment of affirmance. “It has been held by this court that there is a material difference between the rendition and the entry of a judgment. A judgment is rendered when it is announced by the court. It is entered when it is actually entered in the judgment book.” (Schurtz v. Romer, 81 Cal. 244, 247 [ 22 Pac. 657 ].)

“The enforcement of a judgment does not depend upon its entry or docketing. These are merely ministerial acts. ...” (Los Angeles County Bank v. Raynor, 61 Cal. 145, 147 . See, also, Otto v. Long, 144 Cal. 144, 146 [ 77 Pac. 885 ]; Janes v. Ballard, 107 Cal. 130, 132 [ 40 Pac. 108 ].)