[3] But even if we could go beyond the face of the judgment roll, it would still be necessary for the appellant to bring up a properly authenticated record, either a reporter's transcript or bill of exceptions, showing that the documents relied on by appellant were actually submitted to the court upon the motion to vacate. ( Sutcliffe v. Sutcliffe, 220 Cal. 398, 401 [ 31 P.2d 195]; Stern Goodman Inv. Co. v. Danziger, 206 Cal. 456, 458 [ 274 P. 748].) The order denying motion to vacate is affirmed.
This is the rule respecting oral evidence, and that in respect to documentary evidence is to the same effect. ( Sutcliffe v. Sutcliffe, 220 Cal. 398, 401 [ 31 P.2d 195]; Union Supply Co. v. Morris, 220 Cal. 331, 338 [ 30 P.2d 394]; Porter v. Miller, 201 Cal. 750, 753 [ 258 P. 595]; 2 Cal. Jur. 932, sec. 547.) [4] It is true if intervener's complaint failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action in her favor, the appointment of a receiver solely upon such a pleading would be erroneous, but a complaint may be uncertain and ambiguous and even contain conflicting allegations and still contain a sufficient statement of facts to constitute a cause of action.
While it is true that it contains, in addition to a transcript of the judgment roll, copies of affidavits and other matters pertinent to the motion to vacate, these matters extraneous to the judgment roll form no part of the clerk's transcript and must be disregarded. In Sutcliffe v. Sutcliffe, 220 Cal. 398, 401 [ 31 P.2d 195], the following appears: "No record of the proceedings had upon the motion to vacate the decree has been presented, other than the notice of motion, the large number of affidavits, and the minute order denying the motion, all of which were found in the clerk's transcript. There is neither bill of exceptions nor certificate of attestation by the trial court as to what papers, evidence or affidavits were before the court or were used on the hearing of the motion.
Rule XXIX of this court, providing for the authentication of papers on appeal, distinctly so provides. ( Sutcliffe v. Sutcliffe, 220 Cal. 398, 401 [ 31 P.2d 195].) Other than the judgment roll, no further record is required for appeals on the judgment roll alone.
But even if we could go beyond the face of the judgment roll, it would still be necessary for the appellant to bring up a properly authenticated record, either a reporter's transcript or bill of exceptions, showing that the documents relied on by appellant were actually submitted to the court upon the motion to vacate. ( Sutcliffe v. Sutcliffe, 220 Cal. 398, 401 [ 31 P.2d 195]; Stern Goodman Inv. Co. v. Danziger, 206 Cal. 456, 458 [ 274 P. 748].)"
If any matters other than such as appear upon the face of the judgment-roll are sought to be reviewed upon appeal, the record thereof must be presented either by a bill of exceptions or by a reporter's transcript." ( Jeffords v. Young, (1925) 197 Cal. 224, 227 [ 239 P. 1054]; Sutcliffe v. Sutcliffe, (1934) 220 Cal. 398, 401 [ 31 P.2d 195].) Likewise there is no question as to the law that an appellant has the burden of producing a record affirmatively showing error (2 Cal.Jur., § 499, pp. 852, et seq.) and if any matters could have been presented to the court below which would have authorized the order complained of, it will be presumed that such matters were presented.
Nor is any additional standing given to such a document because it is inserted in the judgment roll and certified as a part thereof. ( Sutcliffe v. Sutcliffe, 220 Cal. 398, 401 [ 31 P.2d 195].) Though in some instances an appellate court may examine such a memorandum for certain purposes, it is well established that a reviewing court will not give consideration to such a memorandum for the purpose of defeating the trial court's judgment.
Under such circumstances we cannot order up any part of the record which properly should have been included in a reporter's transcript, had one been ordered, but which forms no proper part of the clerk's transcript on appeal. ( Borenstein v. Borenstein, 20 Cal. (2d) 379 [ 125 P.2d 465]; Sutcliffe v. Sutcliffe, 220 Cal. 398 [ 31 P.2d 195]; Stern Goodman Inv. Co. v. Danziger, 206 Cal. 456 [ 274 P. 748].) To understand the issues involved, a somewhat detailed statement of facts is required.
The fact that the document was, notwithstanding, inserted in the purported judgment roll and certified as being a part thereof does not give said document any additional standing. ( Sutcliffe v. Sutcliffe, 220 Cal. 398, 401 [ 31 P.2d 195].) Conceding that in some instances a court of review will for certain purposes examine such a memorandum, it is settled law that the court of review will not examine such a memorandum for the purpose of defeating the judgment of the trial court.