Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Adams v. Andross 85 Cal. 609

← Cases

Adams v. Andross

85 Cal. 609 Court Department One. Decision date 1890-09-12 Docket No. 12620 English

Delivered by Works, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 609
[No. 12620.
Department One.
September 12, 1890.]
WILLIAM ADAMS, Appellant, v. PORTER H. ANDROSS, Respondent.

Headnote

Appeal — Injunction Order — Authentication of Affidavits. — Upon appeal from an order denying an injunction where the bill of exceptions filed simply recites that certain affidavits, naming them, were read, but none of them are set out in the bill, and certain affidavits appear in the transcript, and a certificate of the judge stating that the affidavits of certain persons and other documents were used at the hearing has been filed, the affidavits being identified only by the names of the parties who made them, and certain indorsements, the authentication of such affidavits is insufficient, and the order will be affirmed.
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco denying an injunction.
The facts áre stated in the opinion of the court.
Whittemore & Sears, for Appellant.
Roger Johnson, and F. W. Van Reynegom, for Respondent.

This is an appeal from an order denying an injunction. Neither of the parties has taken sufficient interest in the case to file a brief. It is apparent that the motion for the injunction was supported by the plaintiff and resisted by the defendant on affidavits. A bill of exceptions was filed, which simply recites that certain affidavits, naming them, were read, but the affidavits are not set out. This, of course, furnishes nothing for this court to act upon. Certain affidavits appear in the transcript, and a certificate of the judge that the affidavits of certain persons and other documents were used at the hearing has been filed, but the affidavits are only identified by the names of the parties who made them, and certain indorsements. It has been held that such an authentication of papers is insufficient. (Herrlich

p. 610
v. McDonald, 80 Cal. 472 ; Somers v. Somers, 81 Cal. 608 .)

Order affirmed.

Fox, J., concurred.

I have considered the affidavits, and think the order of the court is correct.

Cases cited