Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Hershey v. Bristol 162 Cal. 110

← Cases

Hershey v. Bristol

162 Cal. 110 Court Department Two. Decision date 1912-01-29 Docket L. A. No. 2654 English

Delivered by HENSHAW, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 110
[L. A. No. 2654.
Department Two.
January 29, 1912.]
MIRA HERSHEY, Respondent v. EMMA R. BRISTOL et al., Defendants. JENNIE A. BRISTOL, Appellant.

Headnote

Appeal—Order Befusing to Becall writ of Assistance—Lack of Bill of Exceptions—Unauthenticated Becord on Appeal.—An order denying a motion to vacate an order for a writ of assistance and to recall the writ will not be reviewed on appeal and will be affirmed, if the transcript contains no bill of exceptions, and the papers contained in it are unauthentieated as the papers and evidence used or taken on the hearing of the motion in any other way as required by rule XXIX of the supreme court.
'APPEAL from an order of the Superior. Court of Los Angeles County refusing a motion to vacate an order for the is
p. 111
suance of a Writ of Assistance and to recall the writ. Charles Monroe, Judge.
The facts are stated in the opinion óf the court.
M. M. Armstrong, William Freeman, Eay L. Chesebro, and Alonzo D. Hitchcock, for Appellant.
Lynn Helm, and E. S. Williams, for Respondent.

This is an appeal from an order denying appellant’s motion to vacate an order for the issuance of a writ of assistance and to recall the writ. The transcript contains no bill of exceptions, nor are the papers contained in it authenticated as “the papers and evidence used or taken on the hearing of the motion” in any other way as required by rule XXIX, [144 Cal. lii, 119 Pac. xiv], of this court. “Unautlienticated papers in a transcript in which there is no bill of exceptions constitute no part of a record which can be considered on appeal.” (Nash v. Harris, 57 Cal. 242 ; Herrlich v. McDonald, 80 Cal. 472 , [ 22 Pac. 299 ] ; Melde v. Reynolds, 120 Cal. 237 , [ 52 Pac. 491 ]; Skinner v. Horn, 144 Cal. 278 , [ 77 Pac. 904 ].) The result is that appellant presents no record upon which the order appealed from can be reviewed, and respondent’s motion to affirm the order must be and therefore is granted. (Skinner v. Horn, 144 Cal. 278 , [ 77 Pac. 904 ]; Skinner v. Horn, 146 Cal. 62 , [ 79 Pac. 597 ]; Power v. Fairbanks, 146 Cal. 611 , [ 80 Pac. 1075 ]; Wyckoff v. Pajaro R. C. Co., 146 Cal. 681 , [ 81 Pac. 17 ].)

Melvin, J., and Lorigan, J., concurred.

Cases cited