Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Schurman v. Look 190 Cal. 113

← Cases

Schurman v. Look

190 Cal. 113 Court Cal. Decision date 1922-11-20 Docket Sac. No. 3392 English

Contents

Majority

p. 113
[Sac. No. 3392.
In Bank.
November 20, 1922.]
MARTHA SCHURMAN, Appellant, v. HALLECK HART LOOK, Respondent.

Headnote

[1] Appeal—Printing op Evidence in Briefs—Presumption.—In view of section 953e of the Code of Civil Procedure which provides that in filing briefs on appeal the parties must print in their briefs, or in a supplement appended thereto, such portions of the record as they desire to call to the attention of the court, it must be presumed that the appellant has done so, and a motion of the respondent to require the appellant to print additional evidence not in his brief will be denied.
[2] Id.—Right of Respondent.—The respondent may print in his brief such portions of the record as he relies on, and in so doing it is not necessary for him to print every part of the record, but it is sufficient to state the substance of the evidence.
MOTION to require -the printing of additional evidence not in the appellant’s brief. Denied.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Irving D. Gibson and Herbert E. White for Appellant.
C. E. McLaughlin and W. F. Renfro for Respondent.

The motion of the respondent, Halleck Hart Look, to require the appellant to print additional evidence not in his brief is denied.

[1] The code provides that “in filing briefs on said appeal the parties must, however, print in their briefs, or in a supplement appended thereto, such portions of the record as they desire to call to the attention of the court.” (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 953c.) The appellant, it must be presumed, has done so. [2] The respondent may print in his brief such portions of the record as he relies on. It is proper to add that in doing so it is not necessary for him to print every part of the record. It is sufficient for him to state the substance of the evidence. For illustration, where the evidence is produced by question and answer, he may give only the answer where it sufficiently explains the question to which it was presented. In this way the re

p. 114
spondent can. very much abridge the evidence he desires to have presented. Other methods of abbreviation will doubtless occur to the respondent.

Shaw, C. J., Wilbur, J., Lennon, J., Sloane, J., and Lawlor, J., concurred.