J. S. Morgan & Sons v. Bradner

California Court of Appeal

J. S. Morgan & Sons v. Bradner

39 P.2d 225, 3 Cal. App. 2d 206, 1934 Cal. App. LEXIS 1160

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedDecember 19, 1934

DocketCiv. No. 8920

StatusPublished

This text of 39 P.2d 225 (J. S. Morgan & Sons v. Bradner) 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

J. S. Morgan & Sons v. Bradner, 39 P.2d 225, 3 Cal. App. 2d 206, 1934 Cal. App. LEXIS 1160 (Cal. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

SCOTT, J., pro tem.

Plaintiff sued defendants as executors of the estate of Walter H. Morgan, deceased, on a complaint which set out its claim in count one as based on certain promissory notes, in count two on an open book account and in counts three and four on an account stated. The trial court found that the indebtedness had been incurred by deceased as set out in count one, but that it was barred by the statute of limitations, and that no such indebtedness had been incurred as to the remaining counts. Judgment was rendered for defendants.

This appeal is on the judgment roll, no bill of exceptions or reporter’s transcript being presented. In the clerk’s transcript is a “stipulation of facts”, which.is not part of • the judgment roll (Code Civ. Proe., sec. 670; San Francisco Savings Union v. Myers, 76 Cal. 624 [18 Pac. 686]) and cannot be considered on appeal (Jeffords v. [207]*207Young, 197 Cal. 224 [239 Pac. 1054]). The findings support the judgment. We must assume that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the findings (Porter v. Hilton, 214 Cal. 705 [298 Pac. 501, 7 Pac. (2d) 301]), and therefore the questions raised by appellant predicated on the alleged insufficiency of the evidence cannot he considered on this appeal.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens, P. J., and Crail, J., concurred.

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

SCOTT, J., pro tem.

Plaintiff sued defendants as executors of the estate of Walter H. Morgan, deceased, on a complaint which set out its claim in count one as based on certain promissory notes, in count two on an open book account and in counts three and four on an account stated. The trial court found that the indebtedness had been incurred by deceased as set out in count one, but that it was barred by the statute of limitations, and that no such indebtedness had been incurred as to the remaining counts. Judgment was rendered for defendants.

This appeal is on the judgment roll, no bill of exceptions or reporter’s transcript being presented. In the clerk’s transcript is a “stipulation of facts”, which.is not part of • the judgment roll (Code Civ. Proe., sec. 670; San Francisco Savings Union v. Myers, 76 Cal. 624 [18 Pac. 686]) and cannot be considered on appeal (Jeffords v. [207]*207Young, 197 Cal. 224 [239 Pac. 1054]). The findings support the judgment. We must assume that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the findings (Porter v. Hilton, 214 Cal. 705 [298 Pac. 501, 7 Pac. (2d) 301]), and therefore the questions raised by appellant predicated on the alleged insufficiency of the evidence cannot he considered on this appeal.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens, P. J., and Crail, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 P.2d 225, 3 Cal. App. 2d 206, 1934 Cal. App. LEXIS 1160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/j-s-morgan-sons-v-bradner-calctapp-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack