Opinion
Rehearing Denied June 17, 1937.
Hearing Granted by Supreme Court July 26, 1937.
Appeal from Superior Court, Los Angeles County; Ruben S. Schmidt, Judge.
Action by the Union Flower Market, Limited, against the Southern California Flower Market, Incorporated, and others. From the judgment, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
COUNSEL
Lorrin Andrews and Fred W. Heath, both of Los Angeles, for appellant.
J. Marion Wright, John Y. Maeno, Leonard Slosson, and Biby & Biby, all of Los Angeles, for respondents.
OPINION
McCOMB, Justice.
This is a motion to affirm the judgment on the ground that appellant has failed to furnish this court a proper record.
The only record on file is a purported clerk’s transcript containing a copy of:
(a) Plaintiff’s complaint.
(b) Minute order granting judgment on the pleadings.
(c) Judgment.
(d) Notice of appeal.
(e) Notice to the clerk to prepare a transcript of the documents mentioned under headings (a), (b), (c), and (d).
This is the sole question presented for determination:
Has appellant prepared and filed in this court a proper record upon which to predicate its appeal?
This question must be answered in the negative. After taking an appeal here, it is necessary to have prepared and filed a proper record. Such record duly authenticated consists of either:
I. Bill of exceptions (sections 950, 951, and 952, Code Civ.Proc.),
II. Reporter’s transcript of the proceedings in the lower court (sections 953a, 953b, and 953c, Code Civ.Proc.), or
III. Judgment roll (section 670, Code Civ.Proc. as amended by St.1933, p. 1883).
Neither a bill of exceptions, reporter’s transcript, nor judgment roll has been furnished this court. The purported transcript set forth above cannot be considered as a judgment roll, since it does not meet the requirements mentioned in subdivision 2, section 670 of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by St.1933, p. 1883. For example, that section requires that the judgment roll contain a copy of "the pleadings." The document filed here fails to include either a copy of the complaint as amended by interlineation or the answer of respondent thereto.
The law is settled that, where as in this case, an inspection of the record discloses that no relief can be given to the appellant on the record before the court, the judgment of the lower court will be affirmed. Hibernia Savings & Loan Society v. Doran, 161 Cal. 118, 120, 118 P. 526.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment is affirmed.
I concur: CRAIL, P. J.