4.  Carter  v.  Canty,  181  Cal.  749,
186  Pac.  346;  Leavens  v.  Pinkham
etc.,  164  Cal.  242,  128  Pac.  399;
Eraser  v.  Sheldon,  164  Cal.  165,  128
Pac.  33.  See  supra,  this  section,
as  to  necessity  that  order  affect
judgment.
5.  Converse  v.  Scott,  137  Cal.
239,  70  Pac.  13.  Errors  in  rulings
admitting  or  rejecting  evidence  may
not  be  considered  on  a  motion  for
a  nonsuit,  or  upon  an  appeal  from
a  judgment  entered  upon  an  order
granting  a  nonsuit.  Mitchell  v.
Brown,  18  Cal.  App.  117,  122  Pac.
426.
6.  Elledge  v.  Superior  Court,  131
Cal.  279,  63  Pac.  360,  an  order  strik-
ing out  the  costs  from  the  judg-
ment.
7.  See  supra,  S  30.
825


§484


Appeal  and  Ebbob.
2  Cal.  Jut.
judgment:  An  order  denying  a  motion  for  a  change  of
place  of  trial;®  an  order  transferring  an  action  to  some
court  because  of  disqualification  of  the  judge;*  an  order
dissolving  an  attachment  ;*•  interiocutory  judgment  in  di-
vorce;** interiocutory  order  in  partition;**  and  an  order
vacating  a  former  judgment  in  the  cause.**

Attachment. — ^An  order  refusing  to  dissolve  an  attach-
ment cannot  be  reviewed  on  appeal  from  the  judgment
for  the  reason  that  such  order  does  not  affect  the  judg-
ment,** and  also  for  the  reason  that  under  the  present
procedure  the  order  is  directly  appealable.**  But  even
though  it  were  not  appealable,  it  could  not  be  reviewed  on
such  appeal  for  the  reason  first  given.
