Giambruno v. Carmichael's U-Drive Autos, Inc.

California Court of Appeal

Giambruno v. Carmichael's U-Drive Autos, Inc.

1 P.2d 513, 115 Cal. App. 255, 1931 Cal. App. LEXIS 631

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJune 27, 1931

DocketDocket No. 7899.

StatusPublished

This text of 1 P.2d 513 (Giambruno v. Carmichael's U-Drive Autos, Inc.) 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

Giambruno v. Carmichael's U-Drive Autos, Inc., 1 P.2d 513, 115 Cal. App. 255, 1931 Cal. App. LEXIS 631 (Cal. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

STURTEVANT, J.

In the trial court the plaintiffs obtained a judgment awarding them damages for personal injury. Claiming to represent the defendant corporation, its insurance carrier took an appeal and has brought up typewritten transcripts. They were filed March 16, 1931. Thereafter the hearing of the appeal was regularly placed *256 on the calendar of this court for its June term, 1931. When the hearing was called there were no 'briefs on file and no one appeared for the defendants although they had been duly notified by the clerk of this court that the hearing of the appeal was on the calendar, the same being set for 10 A. M. on Wednesday, the tenth day of June, 1931. Counsel appeared for the plaintiffs, and, having called attention to the foregoing facts, made a motion that the judgment he affirmed.

In this state it is a statutory rule that the judgment of a superior court duly made and entered is presumed to be regular. Furthermore it is the settled rule of this state that on an appeal the burden rests on the appellant to present a record showing any alleged error and, in due time, to serve and file briefs in which he shows the alleged error, that the error was prejudicial, and the authorities on which he relies. It is no part of the duty of this court of its own motion to search a record for the purpose of finding errors, if any, within that record.

It follows that the judgment should be affirmed (Howell v. Howell, 101 Cal. 115 [35 Pac. 443]) and it is so ordered.

Nourse, P. J., and Spence, J., concurred.

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

STURTEVANT, J.

In the trial court the plaintiffs obtained a judgment awarding them damages for personal injury. Claiming to represent the defendant corporation, its insurance carrier took an appeal and has brought up typewritten transcripts. They were filed March 16, 1931. Thereafter the hearing of the appeal was regularly placed *256 on the calendar of this court for its June term, 1931. When the hearing was called there were no 'briefs on file and no one appeared for the defendants although they had been duly notified by the clerk of this court that the hearing of the appeal was on the calendar, the same being set for 10 A. M. on Wednesday, the tenth day of June, 1931. Counsel appeared for the plaintiffs, and, having called attention to the foregoing facts, made a motion that the judgment he affirmed.

In this state it is a statutory rule that the judgment of a superior court duly made and entered is presumed to be regular. Furthermore it is the settled rule of this state that on an appeal the burden rests on the appellant to present a record showing any alleged error and, in due time, to serve and file briefs in which he shows the alleged error, that the error was prejudicial, and the authorities on which he relies. It is no part of the duty of this court of its own motion to search a record for the purpose of finding errors, if any, within that record.

It follows that the judgment should be affirmed (Howell v. Howell, 101 Cal. 115 [35 Pac. 443]) and it is so ordered.

Nourse, P. J., and Spence, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 P.2d 513, 115 Cal. App. 255, 1931 Cal. App. LEXIS 631, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/giambruno-v-carmichaels-u-drive-autos-inc-calctapp-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack