Christenson Lumber Co. v. Seawell

108 P. 276, 157 Cal. 405, 1910 Cal. LEXIS 272
California Supreme Court·Decided March 21, 1910·No. S.F. No. 5505.·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

*406 THE COURT.

Petition for writ of mandate. The petitioner was allowed to intervene in an action between other parties. Subsequently demurrers of the defendants in the action" to the third amended complaint of the plaintiffs, and to the complaint in intervention, were sustained and the action, including the intervention, dismissed. Separate appeals from ithe judgment were taken by the defendants and the petitioner, .following the procedure prescribed by sections 953a, 953b, .•and 953c of'the Code of Civil Procedure, and they have presented to the defendant a transcript on appeal with a request that he certify it. His refusal to do so is based upon the fact that the transcript so presented contains nothing but the pleadings and orders constituting the judgment-roll in the action. We think the defendant correctly construes the statute as not applying to a transcript which the clerk may certify. What a judge is required to correct, approve, and certify under the new practice in lieu of a bill of exceptions is the stenographic notes of the trial containing the proceedings and evidence which would form no part of the record unless authenticated as the. statute provides.

Writ denied.

Rehearing denied. \

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

Christenson Lumber Co. v. Seawell, 108 P. 276, 157 Cal. 405, 1910 Cal. LEXIS 272 (Cal. 1910).

108 P. 276 (Christenson Lumber Co. v. Seawell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lake v. Harris
243 P. 417 (California Supreme Court, 1926)
Kibbe v. Graves
191 P. 81 (California Court of Appeal, 1920)
Pierce v. Works
154 P. 852 (California Supreme Court, 1916)
Totten v. Barlow
132 P. 749 (California Supreme Court, 1913)
Thompson v. American Fruit Co.
131 P. 878 (California Court of Appeal, 1913)
Knoch v. Haizlip
124 P. 997 (California Supreme Court, 1912)
Lapique v. Superior Court
122 P. 80 (California Court of Appeal, 1912)