Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Whiting-Mead Commercial Co. v. Richards 40 Cal. App. 266

← Cases

Whiting-Mead Commercial Co. v. Richards

40 Cal. App. 266 Court Second Appellate District, Division Two. Decision date 1919-03-13 Docket Civ. No. 2071 English

Delivered by *267 THOMAS, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 266
[Civ. No. 2071.
Second Appellate District, Division Two.
March 13, 1919.]
WHITING-MEAD COMMERCIAL COMPANY OF SAN DIEGO (a Corporation), et al., Appellants, v. NELLIE D. RICHARDS et al., Respondents.

Headnote

[l] Appeal—Alternative Method—Insuiticient Record.—Where an ■appeal is by the alternative method, and on the clerk’s transcript alone, and the appellant" neither prints any of the record in its briefs nor designates in any way the parts of the transcript upon which it’s alleged statement of facts is based, the briefs will not be considered.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County. C. N. Andrews, Judge. Affirmed.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Charles B. McCoy for Appellants.
Binnard & Macomber for Respondent Nellie D. Richards.

This is an appeal by all the above-named plaintiffs, except G. S. Umpleby, who has dismissed the appeal, so far as his interests are concerned, from an amended judgment entered on February 9, 1916, in which the trial court found that the interest of Nellie D. Richards in certain land was not subject to certain liens, etc.

The appeal is by the alternative method, and on the clerk’s transcript alone.

[1] The exact condition of the record here is, as was said in the case of Welk v. Sorensen et al., 179 Cal. 604 , [ 178 Pac. 498 ] ; “Appellant neither prints any of the record in the brief, nor designates in any way the parts of the transcript upon which the alleged ‘Statement of Facts’ is based. We will not, therefore, consider the brief.”

By virtue of the rule followed in that case this court will not consider the briefs here.

Judgment affirmed.

Finlayson, P. J., and Sloane, J., concurred.

Cases cited