City of Phoenix v. Jones

PER CURIAM. This appeal must be dismissed for two reasons: ■ First. It is from an order sustaining a general and special demurrer to the complaint. It is not from a final judgment or any order under the statute (paragraph 1227, Civ. Code) made appealable. It has several times been decided by this court that an appeal from an order sustaining a demurrer will not lie. Aiton v. Board, 13 Ariz. 74 , 108 Pac. 221 ; Gonzales v. Duey, 15 Ariz. 331 , 138 Pac. 1043 ; Navajo- *433 Apache Bank & Trust Co. v. Desmont, 17 Ariz. 472 , 154 Pac. 206 ; Hollingsworth v. Gazette Printing Co., ante, p. 51, 185 Pac. 359 ; Herman v. Babbitt, ante, p. 257, 187 Pac. 576 . Second. There is no assignment of errors. We feel like insisting that appellants must comply with the rules of the court. In Bouldin v. Sheerer, ante, p. 247, 187 Pac. 568 , the cases citing this rule are collated, with this admonition: “The members of the bar of the state must take notice that this salutary rule will hereafter be strictly enforced.” ' v The appeal is dismissed.