Borba v. De Mello

California Court of Appeal

Borba v. De Mello

172 P. 1113, 36 Cal. App. 601, 1918 Cal. App. LEXIS 573

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedMarch 26, 1918

DocketCiv. No. 2341.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 172 P. 1113 (Borba v. De Mello) 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

Borba v. De Mello, 172 P. 1113, 36 Cal. App. 601, 1918 Cal. App. LEXIS 573 (Cal. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

Defendant in this case appeals from an adverse judgment and presents his appeal by the alternative method. In the briefs filed by counsel no attempt is made to comply with the provisions of section 953c of the Code of Civil Procedure, which require that the parties in presenting an appeal by the method mentioned shall print *602 in their brief such portions of the record as they desire to call to the court’s attention. Numerous references are made to the pages of the transcript filed, but it has been repeatedly held that the appellate courts will not examine the transcript documents in order to determine whether there is merit in the contentions made by the appellant. Many opinions of this court and the supreme court reiterate the rule. A collection of the cases so holding will be found grouped in the case of Barker Bros. v. Joos et al., ante, p. 311, [171 Pac. 1085], Not having properly before us sufficient of the record to illustrate the various contentions made on behalf of the appellant, we are compelled to hold that no error is shown as against the judgment.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

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

THE COURT.

Defendant in this case appeals from an adverse judgment and presents his appeal by the alternative method. In the briefs filed by counsel no attempt is made to comply with the provisions of section 953c of the Code of Civil Procedure, which require that the parties in presenting an appeal by the method mentioned shall print *602 in their brief such portions of the record as they desire to call to the court’s attention. Numerous references are made to the pages of the transcript filed, but it has been repeatedly held that the appellate courts will not examine the transcript documents in order to determine whether there is merit in the contentions made by the appellant. Many opinions of this court and the supreme court reiterate the rule. A collection of the cases so holding will be found grouped in the case of Barker Bros. v. Joos et al., ante, p. 311, [171 Pac. 1085], Not having properly before us sufficient of the record to illustrate the various contentions made on behalf of the appellant, we are compelled to hold that no error is shown as against the judgment.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 P. 1113, 36 Cal. App. 601, 1918 Cal. App. LEXIS 573, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/borba-v-de-mello-calctapp-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack