Hammond Lumber Co. v. Brawley Co-Operative Bldg. Co.

California Supreme Court

Hammond Lumber Co. v. Brawley Co-Operative Bldg. Co.

178 Cal. 95

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedApril 11, 1918

DocketL. A. No. 4042

StatusPublished

This text of 178 Cal. 95 (Hammond Lumber Co. v. Brawley Co-Operative Bldg. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hammond Lumber Co. v. Brawley Co-Operative Bldg. Co., 178 Cal. 95 (Cal. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

VICTOR E. SHAW, J., pro tem.

This is an appeal from a judgment and decree foreclosing a mortgage upon real estate, wherein the sole and only errors alleged to have been committed were in rulings of the court upon the admission and rejection of evidence offered.

The attorneys have stipulated as to the correctness of the judgment:roll, copy of which appears in the transcript, which also contains some printed matter designated by appellants as “a statement of the case,” which, no doubt, was intended as a bill of exceptions to exhibit the alleged errors of which counsel complain. This so-called statement, however, is not made the subject of stipulation nor is it authenticated in any manner whatsoever. Hence, there is no record upon which this court can say that error was committed as claimed by appellants.

The judgment is affirmed.

Wilbur, J., and Melvin, J., concurred.

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

VICTOR E. SHAW, J., pro tem.

This is an appeal from a judgment and decree foreclosing a mortgage upon real estate, wherein the sole and only errors alleged to have been committed were in rulings of the court upon the admission and rejection of evidence offered.

The attorneys have stipulated as to the correctness of the judgment:roll, copy of which appears in the transcript, which also contains some printed matter designated by appellants as “a statement of the case,” which, no doubt, was intended as a bill of exceptions to exhibit the alleged errors of which counsel complain. This so-called statement, however, is not made the subject of stipulation nor is it authenticated in any manner whatsoever. Hence, there is no record upon which this court can say that error was committed as claimed by appellants.

The judgment is affirmed.

Wilbur, J., and Melvin, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 Cal. 95, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hammond-lumber-co-v-brawley-co-operative-bldg-co-cal-1918.