Barker Brothers v. Joos — 36 Cal. App. 311

Majority

p. 311

[Civ. No. 2054.

Second Appellate District.

February 19, 1918.]

BARKER BROTHERS (a Corporation), Appellant, v. J. JOE JOOS et al., Respondents.

Headnote

Appeal—Alternative Method—Review op Typewritten Transcripts. In view of section 953c of the Code of Civil Procedure, which requires that the parties who present a cause on appeal by the alternative method shall print' in their briefs such portions of the record as they desire to call to the attention of the court, where no portions of the record are printed in appellant’s brief, and references are made to the pages of the typewritten transcripts only, appellate courts will not look to the typewritten transcripts for the purpose of determining whether ground exists for reversal of the judgment appealed from.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Leslie R. Hewitt, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

A. P. Michael Narlian, and N. B. Nelson, for Appellant.

Geo. S. Hupp, and Lynden Bowring, for Respondents.

It is stated in the brief of plaintiff in this case that the appeal is from a judgment for the return

p. 312

of certain personal property to the intervener-respondent, or for the value thereof. The appeal is taken under the alternative method. No portions of the record are printed in appellant’s brief. References are made to the pages of the typewritten transcripts only. Section 953c of the Code of Civil Procedure requires that the parties who present a cause on appeal by the alternative method print in their briefs such portions of the record as they desire to call to the attention of the court. It has been repeatedly held that appellate courts will not look to the typewritten transcripts filed under the alternative method of appeal for the purpose of determining whether ground exists for the reversal of the judgment appealed from. (Jones v. American Potash Co., 35 Cal. App. 128 , [ 169 Pac. 397 ]; Marcucci v. Vowinckel, 164 Cal. 693 , [ 130 Pac. 430 ]; Wills v. Woolner, 21 Cal. App. 528 , [ 132 Pac. 283 ]; Miller v. Oliver, 174 Cal. 407 , [ 163 Pac. 357 ]; Pasadena Realty Co. v. Clune, 34 Cal. App. 33 , [ 166 Pac. 1025 ]; McKinnell v. Hansen, 34 Cal. App. 76 , [ 167 Pac. 887 ]; California Sav. & Commercial Bank v. Canne, 34 Cal. App. 768 , [ 169 Pac. 395 ]; Stewart v. Andrews, 35 Cal. App. 230 , [ 169 Pac. 397 ]; Huffaker v. McVey, 35 Cal. App. 302 , [ 169 Pac. 704 ]; Hepler v. Wright, 35 Cal. App. 567 , [ 170 Pac. 667 ]; Anderson v. Recorder’s Court, ante, p. 123, [ 171 Pac. 812 ]; Blochman Commercial & Sav. Bank v. Ketcham, ante, p. 284, [ 171 Pac. 1084 ].)

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Cases cited

Jones v. American Potash Co. 35 Cal. App. 128 Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1917-10-25 p. 312
Marcucci v. Vowinckel 164 Cal. 693 Cal. 1913-02-14 p. 312
Wills v. Woolner 21 Cal. App. 528 Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1913-03-21 p. 312
Miller v. Oliver 174 Cal. 407 Cal. 1917-02-13 p. 312
Pasadena Realty Co. v. Clune 34 Cal. App. 33 Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1917-06-06 p. 312
McKinnell v. Hansen 34 Cal. App. 76 Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1917-06-08 p. 312
California Savings & Commercial Bank v. Canne 34 Cal. App. 768 Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1917-10-09 p. 312
Stewart v. Andrews 35 Cal. App. 230 Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1917-11-07 p. 312
Huffaker v. McVey 35 Cal. App. 302 Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1917-11-14 p. 312
Hepler v. Wright 35 Cal. App. 567 Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1917-12-13 p. 312