Jones v. American Potash Co.

California Court of Appeal

Jones v. American Potash Co.

169 P. 397, 35 Cal. App. 128, 1917 Cal. App. LEXIS 373

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedOctober 25, 1917

DocketCiv. No. 1910.

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 169 P. 397 (Jones v. American Potash Co.) 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

Jones v. American Potash Co., 169 P. 397, 35 Cal. App. 128, 1917 Cal. App. LEXIS 373 (Cal. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

This appeal is taken under the alternative method from a judgment entered against defendant. A number of points appear to be made in the brief of appellant, all of which refer to the evidence presented to the trial court. It is urged, among other things, that the findings and judgment are not supported by the evidence; that the court erred in excluding certain evidence, etc. No part of the record is printed in the brief of appellant, except three paragraphs from the findings of the court. Appellant has utterly failed to print in his brief any other matters to which he desires to call the attention of the court. Necessarily, in order to properly consider the points made as to the insufficiency of the evidence and as to the alleged errors of the court in excluding offered testimony, we should have before us the testimony received and offered. The result is that the only order that can properly be made by this court is one in affirmance of the judgment for want of any showing why the same should be reversed. (Marcucci v. Vowinckel, 164 Cal. 693, [130 Pac. 430] ; Wills v. Woolner, 21 Cal. App. 528, [132 Pac. 283] ; Miller v. Oliver, 174 Cal. 404, [163 Pac. 357]; Pasadena Realty Co. v. Clune, 34 Cal. App. 33, [166 *129 Pac. 1025] ; McKinnell v. Hansen, 34 Cal. App. 76, [167 Pac. 887]; California Sav. etc. Bank, v. Canne, 34 Cal. App. 768, [169 Pac. 395].)

The judgment is affirmed.

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

THE COURT.

This appeal is taken under the alternative method from a judgment entered against defendant. A number of points appear to be made in the brief of appellant, all of which refer to the evidence presented to the trial court. It is urged, among other things, that the findings and judgment are not supported by the evidence; that the court erred in excluding certain evidence, etc. No part of the record is printed in the brief of appellant, except three paragraphs from the findings of the court. Appellant has utterly failed to print in his brief any other matters to which he desires to call the attention of the court. Necessarily, in order to properly consider the points made as to the insufficiency of the evidence and as to the alleged errors of the court in excluding offered testimony, we should have before us the testimony received and offered. The result is that the only order that can properly be made by this court is one in affirmance of the judgment for want of any showing why the same should be reversed. (Marcucci v. Vowinckel, 164 Cal. 693, [130 Pac. 430] ; Wills v. Woolner, 21 Cal. App. 528, [132 Pac. 283] ; Miller v. Oliver, 174 Cal. 404, [163 Pac. 357]; Pasadena Realty Co. v. Clune, 34 Cal. App. 33, [166 *129 Pac. 1025] ; McKinnell v. Hansen, 34 Cal. App. 76, [167 Pac. 887]; California Sav. etc. Bank, v. Canne, 34 Cal. App. 768, [169 Pac. 395].)

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 P. 397, 35 Cal. App. 128, 1917 Cal. App. LEXIS 373, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-american-potash-co-calctapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack