Kuhlman

concurring. I concur. Where, as in this case, a contempt proceeding is strictly criminal in its nature, where, in other words, the object of the proceeding is merely to *142 punish the defendant for a misdemeanor, it is clear that no appeal lies to this court. But I understand the rule to be different where the proceeding is merely a step taken in a civil action or proceeding after judgment for the purpose of enforcing a right of a party thereto.

I add this qualification to my concurrence only because the distinction between the two classes of contempts is not so clearly stated in the opinion of the court as to compel attention.

While the coroner of San Francisco was holding an inquest, the appellant was subpoenaed to appear at the inquest as a witness. He appeared, but refused to testify. Thereupon, the coroner, proceeding under sections 17 and 18 of “An act in relation to coroners in the city and county of San Francisco,” approved March 16, 1872 (Stats. 1871-72, p. 403), made an order which recited the facts, adjudged the appellant-guilty of contempt for not testifying, and ordered the sheriff to take the appellant before some police or superior judge to be punished for such contempt. The appellant was taken before one of the superior judges of the city and county of San Fran *141 cisco, whereupon an order was made by the superior court of which the said judge was the presiding judge, that the appellant, for such contempt, be imprisoned until he should testify before said coroner as directed by the latter. From said order the appellant has appealed to this court; and the matter is now presented upon the motion of the respondent to dismiss the appeal, upon the ground that the order is not an appealable order. The motion must be granted.

Section 1223 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that: “The…