Barr v. Hall

California Court of Appeal

Barr v. Hall

49 P.2d 1124, 9 Cal. App. 2d 426, 1935 Cal. App. LEXIS 1157

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedOctober 9, 1935

DocketCiv. 1390

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 49 P.2d 1124 (Barr v. Hall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barr v. Hall, 49 P.2d 1124, 9 Cal. App. 2d 426, 1935 Cal. App. LEXIS 1157 (Cal. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

BARNARD, P. J.

The respondent has moved to dismiss this appeal or affirm the judgment on the grounds that the appeal was taken for delay only and that the questions presented are so unsubstantial as not to need further argument.

In the opening brief it is urged that the giving and refusal of certain instructions was erroneous in view of the evidence which had been presented. It is at once apparent *427 that it will be necessary to examine the entire record, including the evidence. The opening brief raises at least one substantial question in the decision of which the court should have the assistance of the respondent. This is in effect conceded by the respondent, who filed a brief some months before this motion was made, and who argues, in support of the motion, that any error which may appear is not reversible under section 4½ of article VI of the Constitution.

We have heretofore held that a motion of this character should not be granted where it appears that the case cannot be decided without going over the entire record (Brown v. Gow, 126 Cal. App. 113 [14 Pac. (2d) 322]), and that it should not be used merely for the purpose of advancing the cause on the calendar (Lennon v. Woodbury, 1 Cal. App. (2d) 381 [36 Pac. (2d) 415]).

The motion is denied.

Marks, J., and Jennings, J., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BARNARD, P. J.

The respondent has moved to dismiss this appeal or affirm the judgment on the grounds that the appeal was taken for delay only and that the questions presented are so unsubstantial as not to need further argument.

In the opening brief it is urged that the giving and refusal of certain instructions was erroneous in view of the evidence which had been presented. It is at once apparent *427 that it will be necessary to examine the entire record, including the evidence. The opening brief raises at least one substantial question in the decision of which the court should have the assistance of the respondent. This is in effect conceded by the respondent, who filed a brief some months before this motion was made, and who argues, in support of the motion, that any error which may appear is not reversible under section 4½ of article VI of the Constitution.

We have heretofore held that a motion of this character should not be granted where it appears that the case cannot be decided without going over the entire record (Brown v. Gow, 126 Cal. App. 113 [14 Pac. (2d) 322]), and that it should not be used merely for the purpose of advancing the cause on the calendar (Lennon v. Woodbury, 1 Cal. App. (2d) 381 [36 Pac. (2d) 415]).

The motion is denied.

Marks, J., and Jennings, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 P.2d 1124, 9 Cal. App. 2d 426, 1935 Cal. App. LEXIS 1157, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barr-v-hall-calctapp-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack