From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Joshua Hendy Iron Works

United States District Court, N.D. California, Southern Division
Jan 20, 1942
2 F.R.D. 244 (N.D. Cal. 1942)

Opinion

         Proceeding in the matter of the Joshua Hendy Iron Works, whose name has been changed to the Hendy Realization Company, debtor, involving a controversy between the Hendy Realization Company and others and Harold M. F. Behneman and another, and a proceeding by Gladys M. Shores against the Hendy Realization Company and others, wherein an appeal was taken from the judgment in the two causes, which were consolidated, and wherein the appellees filed a motion to require the appellants to file a reporter's transcript and to direct the clerk as to the certification and transmittal of a proper record on appeal.

         Motion granted.

          Byrne, Lamson & Jordan and Paul S. Jordan, all of San Francisco, Cal., for appellants.

          Stanley Pedder, Kenneth Ferguson, Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro, and Long & Levit, all of San Francisco, Cal., for appellees.


          ST. SURE, District Judge.

         An appeal has been taken from the judgment in the above-entitled consolidated causes.

         Appellees move ‘ to require appellants to file reporter's transcript; and to direct the Clerk as to the certification and transmittal of a proper record on appeal.’

          Appellants' ‘ Designation of Contents of Record on Appeal,’ Rule 75(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, included only certain portions of the transcript. Appellees request that the court compel appellants to furnish and file a complete record.

         Appellees may properly request additional portions of the record, as well as two copies of the reporter's transcript. Rule 75(a) and (b), F.R.C.P.; Cloud v. McLean-Arkansas Lbr. Co., D.C., 28 F.Supp. 623.

          Appellant is protected by Rule 75(e), which provides that inessential matter shall be omitted, and if appellee violates this rule, ‘ the appellate court may withhold or impose costs as the circumstances of the case and discouragement of like conduct in the future may require; and costs may be imposed upon offending attorneys or parties.’ This will be done where the request is unreasonable. Amerlux Steel Corp. v. Johnson Line, 9 Cir., 33 F.2d 70, 71.

         The motion will be granted.


Summaries of

In re Joshua Hendy Iron Works

United States District Court, N.D. California, Southern Division
Jan 20, 1942
2 F.R.D. 244 (N.D. Cal. 1942)
Case details for

In re Joshua Hendy Iron Works

Case Details

Full title:In re JOSHUA HENDY IRON WORKS. v. BEHNEMAN et al. HENDY REALIZATION CO. et…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. California, Southern Division

Date published: Jan 20, 1942

Citations

2 F.R.D. 244 (N.D. Cal. 1942)

Citing Cases

Shores v. Hendy Realization Co.

Affirmed. See, also, In re Joshua Hendy Iron Works, 2 F.R.D. 244. Byrne, Lamson Jordan and Paul S. Jordan,…

Pilcher v. Hamm

A party designating additional matters to be included in the record should avoid requesting those which are…