
    MARY SCHAEFER et al., Appellants, v. THE FRENCH SAVINGS AND LOAN SOCIETY et al., Respondents.
    No. 6611;
    February 23, 1881.
    Appeal—Silence of Transcript—Dismissal.—An appeal assuming to be from an order made after final judgment, when the transcript contains no final judgment nor indicates that there has been one, will be dismissed.
    
    
      APPEAL from Twelfth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco.
    W. S. Cornwall and J. T. Humphreys for appellants; Jarboe & Harrison for respondents.
    
      
       Cited and followed in Macnevin v. Maenevin, 63 Cal. 186, where after ordering judgment for defendant in a divorce ease, but before record accordingly, the trial court, on defendant’s application, had vacated previous orders, made from time to time in the progress of ease, for alimony and counsel fees. On appeal it was held that the court below was not precluded from so vacating, since there is a distinction between a final judgment and an order for one.
    
   By the COURT.

The order of August 2, 1878, was not appealable: Code Civ. Proc., secs. 939, 963.

The transcript contains no final judgment. The order of the 15th of November, 1878, denying plaintiff’s motion to vacate and set aside the final judgment11 entered on the second day of August, 1878,” may have been made for the very reason that no such judgment had been entered. For aught that appears, plaintiff may have made the same mistake in moving to set aside which he made in appealing from the action of the district court of the 2d of August, 1878, and have supposed that the order directing a judgment was a judgment. At all events, so far as appears to this court, no final judgment has yet been entered in the district or superior court, and, as a consequence, no order has been made ‘ after judgment” from which an appeal could have been taken.

Appeals dismissed.  