Meier

This appeal is from the judgment entered after the trial court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend.

Respondents have also filed a motion to dismiss the appeal and such motion must be disposed of prior to any determination on the merits.

*330 The single question before this court on the motion to dismiss the appeal is whether the notice of appeal was timely-made so as to vest jurisdiction in this court.

The chronology of events which occurred in 1959 is as follows:

Appellant contends that her notice of appeal is within the provisions of rule 3(b) and therefore is timely.

Rule 2(a) (i.e., 60-day rule) is applied unless the party can come within one of the exceptions. Rule 3 specifically constitutes one of the exceptions. A condition precedent to the availability of rule 3(b) is that the motion to vacate be timely. An examination of the chronology of events indicates that the motions filed July 13 and July 28 were timely made (i.e., within 60 days from date of entry of judgment). The motions of September 3 and October 13 were not timely made (i.e., the former 72 days and the latter 112 days after entry of judgment, therefore clearly not within the purview of rule…