Jones v. American Potash Co. — 35 Cal. App. 128

AI-generated from this judgment's text. It can contain errors and is not the official version.

No AI brief yet. Click to generate.

Majority

p. 128

[Civ. No. 1910.

Second Appellate District.

October 25, 1917.]

E. H. JONES, Respondent, v. AMERICAN POTASH COMPANY (a Corporation), Appellant.

Headnote

Appeal—Alternative Method—Brief—Insufficient Record.—On an appeal taken from a judgment under the alternative method, the judgment must be affirmed where the appellant fails to print in its brief sufficient of the record to properly present the points relied upon for reversal.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Fred H. Taft, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. .

Robert L. Hubbard, for Appellant.

Horace S. Wilson, for Respondent.

This appeal is taken under the alternative method from a judgment entered against defendant. A number of points appear to be made in the brief of appellant, all of which refer to the evidence presented to the trial court. It is urged, among other things, that the findings and judgment are not supported by the evidence; that the court erred in excluding certain evidence, etc. No part of the record is printed in the brief of appellant, except three paragraphs from the findings of the court. Appellant has utterly failed to print in his brief any other matters to which he desires to call the attention of the court. Necessarily, in order to properly consider the points made as to the insufficiency of the evidence and as to the alleged errors of the court in excluding offered testimony, we should have before us the testimony received and offered. The result is that the only order that can properly be made by this court is one in affirmance of the judgment for want of any showing why the same should be reversed. (Marcucci v. Vowinckel, 164 Cal. 693 , [ 130 Pac. 430 ] ; Wills v. Woolner, 21 Cal. App. 528 , [ 132 Pac. 283 ] ; Miller v. Oliver, 174 Cal. 404 , [ 163 Pac. 357 ]; Pasadena Realty Co. v. Clune, 34 Cal. App. 33 , [ 166

p. 129

Pac. 1025 ] ; McKinnell v. Hansen, 34 Cal. App. 76 , [ 167 Pac. 887 ]; California Sav. etc. Bank, v. Canne, 34 Cal. App. 768 , [ 169 Pac. 395 ].)

The judgment is affirmed.

Cases cited

Marcucci v. Vowinckel 164 Cal. 693 Cal. 1913-02-14 p. 128
Wills v. Woolner 21 Cal. App. 528 Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1913-03-21 p. 128
Miller v. Oliver 174 Cal. 404 Cal. 1917-02-13 p. 128
Pasadena Realty Co. v. Clune 34 Cal. App. 33 Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1917-06-06 p. 128
McKinnell v. Hansen 34 Cal. App. 76 Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1917-06-08 p. 129
California Savings & Commercial Bank v. Canne 34 Cal. App. 768 Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1917-10-09 p. 129