
    [Department One.
    June 14, 1883.]
    WILLIAM H. HOLMES, Appellant, v. J. S. McCLEARY, Defendant.
    Appealable Obdeb.—An order denying a motion to vacate an order denying a previous motion, and for a new trial as to the latter motion, is not an appealable order.
    Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County denying a motion for an order on the sheriff directing the application of the proceeds of a sale of attached property, and from an order refusing a new trial of such motion.
    
      On September 13th the sheriff attached the property of the defendant McCleary, in an action against him by one Valentine. The following day te levied another attachment on. the same property, in an action by the appellant, “ subject to a prior levy in favor of Valentine.” The property was subsequently sold, and the proceeds being insufficient to pay more than Valentine’s claim, the appellant moved the court to direct the sheriff to apply the proceeds to the satisfaction of his claim, on the ground that the attachment was void. The court denied the motion, and the appellant moved for a new trial, which was refused.
    
      John B. Jones, for Appellant.
    
      M. A. 1/u.ee, for Sheriff.
   Per Curiam.

The notice of appeal is as follows:—

“You will please take notice that the plaintiff in the above entitled action hereby appeals to the Supreme Court of the State from the judgment or order denying plaintiff’s motion for an order on Joseph Coyne, sheriff, directing him to apply the proceeds of the property herein attached by him to the satisfaction of the plaintiff’s judgment and costs therein, and entered in the said Superior Court, on the 30th day of October, 1882, in favor of said Joseph Coyne, sheriff, and against said plaintiff, and from the whole thereof. And also from the order denying said plaintiff’s motion for a new trial, made and entered in the minutes of said court the 27th day of November, 1882.”

The order of the 27th of November was not appealable, and the “ statement ” on motion for new trial cannot be considered here.

There remains only the notice of motion for, and the order of, October 30th, from which no error appears.

Order affirmed.  