Penland v. Golden

Annotate this Case
[Civ. No. 18357. Second Dist., Div. One. Nov. 5, 1951.]

ELLEDGE R. PENLAND, Appellant, v. NATHAN GOLDEN et al., Respondents.


Elledge R. Penland, in pro. per., for Appellant.

Major & Tenner and Jack Tenner for Respondents.


HANSON, J. pro. tem.

[1] This is an appeal from an order sustaining a demurrer to a complaint with leave to amend. As an appeal does not lie from such an order, but only from a judgment entered thereon we are without jurisdiction to review the case on its merits. (Cornic v. Stewart, 179 Cal. 242 [176 P. 164].) Accordingly, we are required on our own motion to dismiss the appeal.

Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

White, P. J., and Doran, J., concurred.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.