From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ferslew v. Andersen

Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division Two
Jan 23, 1936
11 Cal.App.2d 400 (Cal. Ct. App. 1936)

Opinion

Docket No. 10780.

January 23, 1936.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Santa Barbara County. A.B. Bigler, Judge. Appeal dismissed.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

W.J. Galbraith for Appellant.

Butcher Haines for Respondent.


This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of respondent after a trial before a court without a jury.

[1] Appellant has not observed the provision of Rule VIII, section 2, of this court, which requires that the question involved on appeal in a civil action be set forth on the first page of the opening brief without any other matter appearing thereon. (Rule VIII, sec. 2, p. 10, Rules of the Supreme Court and District Courts of Appeal of the State of California.)

In the instant case there is a total absence of a compliance with the foregoing rule. This court cannot assume the task of searching the record for the purpose of discovering errors not pointed out by counsel. It is the duty of counsel to comply with Rule VIII, supra, in its entirety.

For the foregoing reasons the appeal is dismissed.

Crail, P.J., and Wood, J., concurred.


Summaries of

Ferslew v. Andersen

Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division Two
Jan 23, 1936
11 Cal.App.2d 400 (Cal. Ct. App. 1936)
Case details for

Ferslew v. Andersen

Case Details

Full title:MAX FERSLEW, Appellant, v. ANTONE ANDERSEN, Respondent

Court:Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division Two

Date published: Jan 23, 1936

Citations

11 Cal.App.2d 400 (Cal. Ct. App. 1936)
53 P.2d 768

Citing Cases

Reinert v. California Almond Growers Exchange

It is the duty of counsel to comply with rule VIII, supra, in its entirety. Battson v. Kirkpatrick (Cal.App.)…