Hershey v. Bristol

California Supreme Court

Hershey v. Bristol

121 P. 871, 162 Cal. 110, 1912 Cal. LEXIS 501

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 29, 1912

DocketL.A. No. 2654.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 121 P. 871 (Hershey v. Bristol) 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

Hershey v. Bristol, 121 P. 871, 162 Cal. 110, 1912 Cal. LEXIS 501 (Cal. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

HENSHAW, J.

This is an appeal from an order denying appellant’s motion to vacate an order for the issuance of a writ of assistance and to recall the writ. The transcript contains no bill of exceptions, nor are the papers contained in it authenticated as “the papers and evidence used or taken on the hearing of the motion” in any other way as required by rule XXIX, [144 Cal. lii, 119 Pac. xiv], of this court. “Unautlienticated papers in a transcript in which there is no bill of exceptions constitute no part of a record which can be considered on appeal.” (Nash v. Harris, 57 Cal. 242; Herrlich v. McDonald, 80 Cal. 472, [22 Pac. 299] ; Melde v. Reynolds, 120 Cal. 237, [52 Pac. 491]; Skinner v. Horn, 144 Cal. 278, [77 Pac. 904].) The result is that appellant presents no record upon which the order appealed from can be reviewed, and respondent’s motion to affirm the order must be and therefore is granted. (Skinner v. Horn, 144 Cal. 278, [77 Pac. 904]; Skinner v. Horn, 146 Cal. 62, [79 Pac. 597]; Power v. Fairbanks, 146 Cal. 611, [80 Pac. 1075]; Wyckoff v. Pajaro R. C. Co., 146 Cal. 681, [81 Pac. 17].)

Melvin, J., and Lorigan, J., concurred.

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

HENSHAW, J.

This is an appeal from an order denying appellant’s motion to vacate an order for the issuance of a writ of assistance and to recall the writ. The transcript contains no bill of exceptions, nor are the papers contained in it authenticated as “the papers and evidence used or taken on the hearing of the motion” in any other way as required by rule XXIX, [144 Cal. lii, 119 Pac. xiv], of this court. “Unautlienticated papers in a transcript in which there is no bill of exceptions constitute no part of a record which can be considered on appeal.” (Nash v. Harris, 57 Cal. 242; Herrlich v. McDonald, 80 Cal. 472, [22 Pac. 299] ; Melde v. Reynolds, 120 Cal. 237, [52 Pac. 491]; Skinner v. Horn, 144 Cal. 278, [77 Pac. 904].) The result is that appellant presents no record upon which the order appealed from can be reviewed, and respondent’s motion to affirm the order must be and therefore is granted. (Skinner v. Horn, 144 Cal. 278, [77 Pac. 904]; Skinner v. Horn, 146 Cal. 62, [79 Pac. 597]; Power v. Fairbanks, 146 Cal. 611, [80 Pac. 1075]; Wyckoff v. Pajaro R. C. Co., 146 Cal. 681, [81 Pac. 17].)

Melvin, J., and Lorigan, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 P. 871, 162 Cal. 110, 1912 Cal. LEXIS 501, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hershey-v-bristol-cal-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack