
    (November 30, 1895.)
    HODGINS, Administrator, v. HARRIS.
    [43 Pac. 72.]
    Pinal Judgment — Order for is not. — An order for a judgment is not such a final judgment as an appeal can be taken from under the provisions of the statutes of Idaho.
    (Syllabus by the court.)
    APPEAL from District Court, Latah County.
    Forney, Smith & Moore and R. T. Morgan, for Appellant.
    S. S. Denning, for Harris and Wife, Respondents.
    Eugene O’Neill and J. C. Elder, for Intervener White.
    No briefs were filed or authorities cited by any of the attorneys upon the point decided by the court.
   HHSTON, J.

This is an action to foreclose a mortgage. At the end of the conclusions of law found by the district court, the following words appear: “It is ordered that, after deducting the payment to the sheriff, that the balance of the proceeds of sale be paid into court, and distributed, by and -through the clerk, in the foregoing order, and that judgment and decree be entered herein in accordance with the foregoing findings. Done in open court this eighth day of December,, 1894. [Signed] W. G. Piper, Judge.” This is not a judgment, as bas been repeatedly decided by this court, following uniform decisions of the supreme court of California upon identical statutes. (Durant v. Comegys, 3 Idaho, 67, 35 Am. St. Rep. 267, 26 Pac. 755; Gray v. Cederholm, 2 Idaho, 34, 3 Pac. 12; Meysan v. Chabrie (Cal.), 7 Pac. 634; Stebbins v. Savage, 5 Mont. 253, 5 Pac. 278; Gray v. Palmer, 28 Cal. 416; McNevin v. McNevin, 11 Pac. C. L. J. 92; Thomas v. Anderson, 55 Cal. 43; Schroder v. Schmidt, 71 Cal. 399, 12 Pac. 302; and many others.) Appeal dismissed with costs.

Morgan, C. J., and Sullivan, J., concur.  