Frank Graves Sash, Door & Mill Co. v. Karoly

California Court of Appeal

Frank Graves Sash, Door & Mill Co. v. Karoly

16 P.2d 195, 127 Cal. App. 410, 1932 Cal. App. LEXIS 380

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedNovember 10, 1932

DocketDocket No. 8653.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 16 P.2d 195 (Frank Graves Sash, Door & Mill Co. v. Karoly) 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

Frank Graves Sash, Door & Mill Co. v. Karoly, 16 P.2d 195, 127 Cal. App. 410, 1932 Cal. App. LEXIS 380 (Cal. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

SPENCE, J.

Actions were brought to foreclose mechanics’ liens and were consolidated for the purpose of trial. Plaintiffs had judgment, from which judgment defendants Rosemary Keener and Kate Keener appeal.

Appellants have filed an opening brief 118 pages in length. It is absolutely devoid of a single heading “showing the nature of the question to be presented or the point to be made”, as required by Rule VIII of the Rules for the Supreme Court and District Courts of Appeal. The only headings in the brief are “Statement”, “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law”, “Judgment”, “Evidence” and “Argument”. In other words, a reading of the headings does not disclose in any manner the points upon which appellants rely. After reading appellants’ brief we are still in doubt as to what these points may be.

The above-mentioned rule has been in effect for many years and its requirements have been repeatedly called to the attention of the bar. We cite but a few of the more recent cases. (Landa, v. Steinberg, 126 Cal. App. 324 [14 Pac. (2d) 532]; Tong v. Sun Realty Co., (Cal. App.) [14 Pac. (2d) 127] ; Estate of Dawson, 125 Cal. App. 223 [13 Pac. (2d) 758] ; Milano v. Bulleri, 125 Cal. App. 72 [13 Pac. (2d) 521], and cases cited.) Under the terms of the rule, *412 an appeal may be dismissed upon the court’s own motion, where appellant fails to comply therewith. We have been reluctant to take such action in the past but we deem this a proper case in which to do so.

The appeal is dismissed.‡

Nourse, P. J., and Sturtevant, J., concurred.

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

SPENCE, J.

Actions were brought to foreclose mechanics’ liens and were consolidated for the purpose of trial. Plaintiffs had judgment, from which judgment defendants Rosemary Keener and Kate Keener appeal.

Appellants have filed an opening brief 118 pages in length. It is absolutely devoid of a single heading “showing the nature of the question to be presented or the point to be made”, as required by Rule VIII of the Rules for the Supreme Court and District Courts of Appeal. The only headings in the brief are “Statement”, “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law”, “Judgment”, “Evidence” and “Argument”. In other words, a reading of the headings does not disclose in any manner the points upon which appellants rely. After reading appellants’ brief we are still in doubt as to what these points may be.

The above-mentioned rule has been in effect for many years and its requirements have been repeatedly called to the attention of the bar. We cite but a few of the more recent cases. (Landa, v. Steinberg, 126 Cal. App. 324 [14 Pac. (2d) 532]; Tong v. Sun Realty Co., (Cal. App.) [14 Pac. (2d) 127] ; Estate of Dawson, 125 Cal. App. 223 [13 Pac. (2d) 758] ; Milano v. Bulleri, 125 Cal. App. 72 [13 Pac. (2d) 521], and cases cited.) Under the terms of the rule, *412 an appeal may be dismissed upon the court’s own motion, where appellant fails to comply therewith. We have been reluctant to take such action in the past but we deem this a proper case in which to do so.

The appeal is dismissed.‡

Nourse, P. J., and Sturtevant, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 P.2d 195, 127 Cal. App. 410, 1932 Cal. App. LEXIS 380, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frank-graves-sash-door-mill-co-v-karoly-calctapp-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack