Watson

In this case the plaintiff and appellant appeals from eighteen orders made by the lower court on proceedings supplemental to execution. But one notice of appeal was given. The clerk certifies that “an undertaking on appeal in due form has been properly filed in the foregoing action.”

The defendant and respondent insists that, as there were eighteen appeals and but one undertaking, the appeals must be dismissed, and he cites authorities which sustain his position. (People v. Center, 61 Cal. 191 ; Home & Loan Associates v. Wilkins, 71 Cal. 626 , [ 12 Pac. 799 ]; Meley v. Boulon, 104 Cal. 262 , [ 37 Pac. 931 ].) The appellant does not controvert the soundness of these authorities, but he seeks to avoid their effect by claiming that his appeal is from but one order, to wit, a certain ruling or order made by the court in ruling upon the admissibility of evidence wherein the court used this language: “I am inclined to the opinion that the examination should be confined to the property Mr. Pryor may have acquired. since the prior examination.” This is clearly a ruling upon the admissibility of proposed evidence and is one of some twenty-eight similar rulings. No final judgment or order…