Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Spence v. Scott 97 Cal. 181

← Cases

Spence v. Scott

97 Cal. 181 Court Cal. Decision date 1893-01-12 Docket No. 14774 English

Contents

Majority

p. 181
[No. 14774.
In Bank.
January 12, 1893.]
E. F. SPENCE, Trustee, Respondent, v. JESSUP W. SCOTT et al., Dependants. H. I. KOWALSKY, Appellant.

Headnote

Appeal—Review of Judgment — Bill of Exceptions — Striking Out Parts of Answer. —The question whether the trial court erred in striking out parts oi an answer cannot be presented upon an appeal from a judgment without a bill of exceptions.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Finlayson & Finlayson, H. I. Kowalsky, and Works & Works, for Appellant.
A. B. Hotchkiss and Houghton, Silent & Campbell, for Respondent.

Upon further consideration of this cause, after hearing in Bank, we are satisfied with the conclusion which was reached by Department One in its opinion filed September 2, 1892, and for the reasons stated in said opinion, the judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.

The following is the opinion above referred to: —

This is an appeal taken from a judgment of foreclosure by one of the defendants. There is no bill of exceptions.

Appellant filed an answer in which he set up various defenses. It is claimed that the court erroneously struck out certain portions of his answer, and this is the only question which he seeks to present on this appeal.

Manifestly, the question cannot be presented without a bill of exceptions. (Dimick v. Campbell, 31 Cal. 238 ; Douglas v. Dakin, 46 Cal. 49 ; Nevada County and Sacra

p. 182
mento Canal Co. v. Kidd, 43 Cal. 180 ; Feely v. Shirley, 43 Cal. 369 ; Code Civ. Proc., secs. 670, 950.)

Indeed, the decisions upon this point have been very numerous, commencing with the first volume of the reports. The following are a few of them: Gunter v. Geary, 1 Cal. 462 ; Griswold v. Sharpe, 2 Cal. 17 ; Wilson v. Middleton, 2 Cal. 54 ; Castro’s Ex’rs v. Armesti, 14 Cal. 39 ; Dawley v. Hovious, 23 Cal. 103 ; Harper v. Minor, 27 Cal. 107 ; Mendocino Co. v. Morris, 32 Cal. 145 ; People v. Empire G. & S. M. Co., 33 Cal. 171 ; Pardy v. Montgomery, 77 Cal. 326 ; Gilman v. Bootz, 80 Cal. 564 ; Caruthers v. Hensley, 90 Cal. 559 .

We advise that the judgment and order be affirmed.

Vanclief, C., and Belcher, C., concurred.

For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, the judgment and order are affirmed.

Harrison, J., Garoutte, J., Paterson, J.

Cases cited

Statutes and regulations cited