From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lillard v. Abbott Hardware Company

Court of Appeal of California, Second District
Sep 26, 1917
34 Cal.App. 719 (Cal. Ct. App. 1917)

Opinion

Civ. No. 1877.

September 26, 1917.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Charles Wellborn, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Jones Weller, for Appellant.

Leo V. Youngworth, for Respondent.


In this case the appeal is taken by the defendant from an adverse judgment. It was taken under the procedure known as the alternative method, by which typewritten transcripts of the clerk's and reporter's records are provided to be filed in the appellate court. In such cases it is the duty of the appellant to print in his brief such portions of the record as he desires to call to the attention of the court in support of his argument. (See Code Civ. Proc., sec. 953c; also, Cunnison v. Miller, ante, p. 267, [ 167 P. 890], and collection of cases cited therein.) In this case no part of the judgment-roll is printed in or with the brief of appellant, and none of the testimony given at the trial is therein printed, except very brief and fragmentary extracts which are wholly insufficient to illustrate the points made or show error. For that reason, following the uniform holding of the supreme court and of this court, the judgment must be affirmed.

The judgment is affirmed.

Conrey, P. J., and Shaw, J., concurred.


Summaries of

Lillard v. Abbott Hardware Company

Court of Appeal of California, Second District
Sep 26, 1917
34 Cal.App. 719 (Cal. Ct. App. 1917)
Case details for

Lillard v. Abbott Hardware Company

Case Details

Full title:FRANK Z. LILLARD, Respondent, v. ABBOTT HARDWARE COMPANY (a Corporation)…

Court:Court of Appeal of California, Second District

Date published: Sep 26, 1917

Citations

34 Cal.App. 719 (Cal. Ct. App. 1917)
168 P. 707

Citing Cases

Easterly v. Praul

No part of the judgment-roll is printed in the brief of appellant, and we are left without record information…