Majority
p. 232[Department One. March 7, 1883.] JAMES F. WHITE et al., Respondents, v. JONATHAN LONGMIRE, Defendant, JACOB GREENEBAUM et al., Garnishees, Appellants.
Headnote
Orders After Judgment—Appear—Identification of Papers. — Certain orders made after final judgment affirmed because the papers contained in the transcript were not identified as the papers used on the hearing in the court below.Appeal from two orders of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco.
The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.
Naphtaly, Freidenrich & Ackerman, for Appellants.
John A. Wright, for Respondents.
The appeal in this case is from two special
p. 233
orders made after final judgment taken by virtue of the third subdivision of section 939 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On such appeal, the appellant must furnish the court with a copy of the notice of appeal, of the orders appealed from, and of the papers used on the hearing in the court below. (Code Civ. Proc. § 951.)
As the papers found in the transcript are not identified as having been used on the hearing of the court below, the orders appealed from must be affirmed. (Baker v. Snyder, 58 Cal. 617 .)
Orders affirmed.
Cases cited
- Baker v. Snyder 58 Cal. 617 p. 233