Johnson v. Johnson

California Court of Appeal

Johnson v. Johnson

23 P.2d 780, 133 Cal. App. 151, 1933 Cal. App. LEXIS 540

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJuly 1, 1933

DocketCiv. No. 673

StatusPublished

This text of 23 P.2d 780 (Johnson v. Johnson) 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

Johnson v. Johnson, 23 P.2d 780, 133 Cal. App. 151, 1933 Cal. App. LEXIS 540 (Cal. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

MARKS, J.

This is an appeal from an order vacating the levy of an execution and quashing the writ. The record presented is most deficient. There is no judgment-roll, reporter’s transcript, nor bill of exceptions. The record consists of copies of the order appealed from and the notice of appeal and various orders, minute orders and affidavits. The clerk certified that they were true and correct copies of the originals on file in his office. There is no certificate of the judge contained in the record. In cases of this kind counsel should have a bill of exceptions settled. As the record before us is not authenticated in the manner required by law and is totally deficient, we cannot consider it. (Sec. 951, Code Civ. Proc.; Guyot v. Cassab, 118 Cal. App. 742 [5 Pac. (2d) 912]; Salinas v. Riverside Finance Co., 126 Cal. App. 675 [14 Pac. (2d) 1025].)

Order affirmed.

Barnard, P. J., concurred.

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

MARKS, J.

This is an appeal from an order vacating the levy of an execution and quashing the writ. The record presented is most deficient. There is no judgment-roll, reporter’s transcript, nor bill of exceptions. The record consists of copies of the order appealed from and the notice of appeal and various orders, minute orders and affidavits. The clerk certified that they were true and correct copies of the originals on file in his office. There is no certificate of the judge contained in the record. In cases of this kind counsel should have a bill of exceptions settled. As the record before us is not authenticated in the manner required by law and is totally deficient, we cannot consider it. (Sec. 951, Code Civ. Proc.; Guyot v. Cassab, 118 Cal. App. 742 [5 Pac. (2d) 912]; Salinas v. Riverside Finance Co., 126 Cal. App. 675 [14 Pac. (2d) 1025].)

Order affirmed.

Barnard, P. J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 P.2d 780, 133 Cal. App. 151, 1933 Cal. App. LEXIS 540, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-johnson-calctapp-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack