Summary
In Credit Clearance Bureau v. Weary Alford Co., 18 Cal.App. 467, [ 123 P. 548,] this court said: "To perfect such an appeal it was necessary for the appellant to adopt either the method prescribed by sections 953a, 953b, 953c, of the Code of Civil Procedure, or that prescribed by rule 29 of the supreme court, (144 Cal. lii, [78 Pac. xii]).
Summary of this case from Pouchan v. GodeauOpinion
Civ. No. 949.
March 7, 1912.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco vacating and setting aside a judgment by default. Thomas F. Graham, Judge.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
L. H. Melsted, and Edwin H. Williams, for Appellant.
Stratton Kaufman, for Respondent.
This is an appeal from an order vacating and setting aside a default judgment.
The defendant objects to the hearing of the appeal on the ground that no properly authenticated record has been filed in this court.
The clerk of the trial court prepared what purports to be a transcript for the use of this court upon the appeal, certifying that it contained a full, true and correct copy of the judgment-roll, notice of motion to set aside the default, and affidavits used on the hearing. It has been held, however, in several cases that this authentication is insufficient. Here the appeal is from an order heard and determined upon affidavits. To perfect such an appeal it was necessary for the appellant to adopt either the method prescribed by sections 953a, 953b and 953c of the Code of Civil Procedure or that prescribed by rule XXIX of the supreme court. (144 Cal. lii, [78 Pac. xii].) If either of such methods had been pursued, the record would have been examined and authenticated by the trial judge — the person who knew what papers were used upon the hearing of the motion. As was said in Walsh v. Hutchings, 60 Cal. 228, "It is not for the clerk to determine what papers or evidence the court acted upon."
The plaintiff having availed itself of neither method to perfect its appeal, it results that the appeal cannot be considered and that we must affirm the order. ( Knox v. Schrag, ante, p. 220, [ 122 P. 969]; Harrison v. Cousins, 16 Cal.App. 515, [ 117 P. 564]; Hibernia Sav. Loan Society v. Doran, 161 Cal. 118, [ 118 P. 526]; Hershey v. Bristol, 162 Cal. 110, [ 121 P. 371].)
The order is affirmed.
Hall, J., and Lennon, P. J., concurred.