From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

BARKER BROTHERS v. JOOS

Court of Appeal of California, Second District
Feb 19, 1918
36 Cal.App. 311 (Cal. Ct. App. 1918)

Summary

In Barker Bros. v. Joos, 36 Cal.App. 311, [ 171 P. 1085], no portions of the record were printed in appellant's brief, reference being made to pages of the typewritten transcript only.

Summary of this case from Schaad v. Barceloux

Opinion

Civ. No. 2054.

February 19, 1918.

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 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 P. 397]; Marcucci v. Vowinckel, 164 Cal. 693, [ 130 P. 430]; Wills v. Woolner, 21 Cal.App. 528, [ 132 P. 283]; Miller v. Oliver, 174 Cal. 407, [ 163 P. 357]; Pasadena Realty Co. v. Clune, 34 Cal.App. 33, [ 166 P. 1025]; McKinnell v. Hansen, 34 Cal.App. 76, [ 167 P. 887]; California Sav. Commercial Bank v. Canne, 34 Cal.App. 768, [ 169 P. 395]; Stewart v. Andrews, 35 Cal.App. 230, [ 169 P. 397]; Huffaker v. McVey, 35 Cal.App. 302, [ 169 P. 704]; Hepler v. Wright, 35 Cal.App. 567, [ 170 P. 667]; Anderson v. Recorder's Court, ante, p. 123, [ 171 P. 812]; Blochman Commercial Sav. Bank v. Ketcham, ante, p. 284, [ 171 P. 1084].)

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.


Summaries of

BARKER BROTHERS v. JOOS

Court of Appeal of California, Second District
Feb 19, 1918
36 Cal.App. 311 (Cal. Ct. App. 1918)

In Barker Bros. v. Joos, 36 Cal.App. 311, [ 171 P. 1085], no portions of the record were printed in appellant's brief, reference being made to pages of the typewritten transcript only.

Summary of this case from Schaad v. Barceloux
Case details for

BARKER BROTHERS v. JOOS

Case Details

Full title:BARKER BROTHERS (a Corporation), Appellant, v. J. JOE JOOS et al.…

Court:Court of Appeal of California, Second District

Date published: Feb 19, 1918

Citations

36 Cal.App. 311 (Cal. Ct. App. 1918)
171 P. 1085

Citing Cases

Wheeler v. Houston, Gore & Loy

The subject, therefore, is not properly presented for consideration here. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 953c; Barker…

Tobey v. Randall

[1] Where the record is prepared under the "alternative method" now allowed, and the parties do not cause to…