
    [No. 15061.
    In Bank. —
    September 9, 1892.]
    J. H. McCORMICK, Respondent, v. W. W. BELVIN et al., Appellants.
    Appeal — Void Undertaking — Distinct Appeals — Insufficient Reference— Dismissal — Construction of Code. — Where an appellant, by one notice of appeal, gave notice that he appealed from the judgment, from an order denying a motion to dismiss the action, and from an order denying a motion to set aside a judgment by default, and gave one undertaking on appeal in the sum of three hundred dollars, not referring separately to either of the appeals, the undertaking is void, and there is no remedy under section 954 of the Code of Civil Procedure to file a new undertaking, so as to preclude a dismissal of the appeal.
    Id. — Appealable Order—Denying Motion to Set Aside Default.— An order denying a motion to set aside a judgment by default is appeal-able.
    Motion to dismiss appeals from a judgment and two orders of the Superior Court of San Francisco. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
    
      G. L. Weller, for Appellants.
    
      Pillsbury, Blanding & Hayne, for Eespondent.
   The Court.

— This is a motion by respondent to dis-

miss three appeals, upon the ground of want of undertaking on appeal.

The appellant, by one notice of appeal, gave notice that he appealed from the judgment entered in the case; from an order denying appellants’ motion to dismiss the action; and also from an order denying appellants’ motion to set aside the judgment by default. Only one undertaking on appeal was given, in the sum of three hundred dollars; and it did not refer separately to either of the appeals. “ The undertaking is no undertaking at all”; and there is no remedy under section 954 of the the Code of Civil Procedure. (Home and Loan Association v. Wilkins, 71 Cal. 626; Corcoran v. Desmond, 71 Cal. 100.) One of the orders, at least, was appealable, — the order denying the motion to set aside the default judgment.

The appeals are dismissed.  