Patten & Davies Lumber Co. v. Inman

California Court of Appeal

Patten & Davies Lumber Co. v. Inman

180 P. 26, 40 Cal. App. 111, 1919 Cal. App. LEXIS 77

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedFebruary 27, 1919

DocketCiv. No. 2551.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 180 P. 26 (Patten & Davies Lumber Co. v. Inman) 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

Patten & Davies Lumber Co. v. Inman, 180 P. 26, 40 Cal. App. 111, 1919 Cal. App. LEXIS 77 (Cal. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

SHAW, J.

In this action plaintiff sued to recover upon a draft drawn by William Durflinger upon and accepted by Charles T. Inman. In his answer Inman alleged that in accepting the draft he acted for and as agent of one F. H. Richman, and asked that he be made a party defendant to the action. Thereupon plaintiff filed an amended complaint making Durflinger, Inman, and Richman parties defendant, and wherein it was alleged that Inman in making the draft acted for and as agent of Richman. Durflinger suffered default. *112 Bichman filed an answer putting in issue the question of Inman’s alleged agency in acting for him, and the result of the trial was that, at the close thereof, the court made an order granting Bichman’s motion for a nonsuit, and gave judgment in favor of plaintiff as against Inman, fiom which he has appealed.

While appellant states that ,hé is “unable to find an error which would justify the reversal of the judgment in so far as the plaintiff'is concerned,” he nevertheless insists that the court erred in granting Bichman’s motion for a nonsuit.

[1] The record is presented in accordance with the method provided in section 953a of the Code of Civil Procedure, but, conceding appellant’s right to have the alleged error reviewed, he omits to print in his brief any portion of the record showing, as required by section 953c of the Code of Civil Procedure, that the court erred in granting the motion. This alone, upon the authority of Jones v. American Potash Co., 35 Cal. App. 128, [169 Pac. 397], and Anderson v. Recorder’s Court, 36 Cal. App. 123, [171 Pac. 812], is sufficient ground to justify an affirmance of the judgment.

[2] It appears, however, that while defendant in his answer alleged that in accepting the draft he acted as agent for Bichman, he demanded no affirmative relief, but contented himself by asking that Bichman be brought in by plaintiff as a party to the action; hence it is apparent that Inman is not aggrieved by the ruling. He, conceding the ruling erroneous, is in no position to complain because the court denied plaintiff the relief which it asked against Bichman.

The judgment is affirmed.

Conrey, P. J., and James, J., concurred.

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

SHAW, J.

In this action plaintiff sued to recover upon a draft drawn by William Durflinger upon and accepted by Charles T. Inman. In his answer Inman alleged that in accepting the draft he acted for and as agent of one F. H. Richman, and asked that he be made a party defendant to the action. Thereupon plaintiff filed an amended complaint making Durflinger, Inman, and Richman parties defendant, and wherein it was alleged that Inman in making the draft acted for and as agent of Richman. Durflinger suffered default. *112 Bichman filed an answer putting in issue the question of Inman’s alleged agency in acting for him, and the result of the trial was that, at the close thereof, the court made an order granting Bichman’s motion for a nonsuit, and gave judgment in favor of plaintiff as against Inman, fiom which he has appealed.

While appellant states that ,hé is “unable to find an error which would justify the reversal of the judgment in so far as the plaintiff'is concerned,” he nevertheless insists that the court erred in granting Bichman’s motion for a nonsuit.

[1] The record is presented in accordance with the method provided in section 953a of the Code of Civil Procedure, but, conceding appellant’s right to have the alleged error reviewed, he omits to print in his brief any portion of the record showing, as required by section 953c of the Code of Civil Procedure, that the court erred in granting the motion. This alone, upon the authority of Jones v. American Potash Co., 35 Cal. App. 128, [169 Pac. 397], and Anderson v. Recorder’s Court, 36 Cal. App. 123, [171 Pac. 812], is sufficient ground to justify an affirmance of the judgment.

[2] It appears, however, that while defendant in his answer alleged that in accepting the draft he acted as agent for Bichman, he demanded no affirmative relief, but contented himself by asking that Bichman be brought in by plaintiff as a party to the action; hence it is apparent that Inman is not aggrieved by the ruling. He, conceding the ruling erroneous, is in no position to complain because the court denied plaintiff the relief which it asked against Bichman.

The judgment is affirmed.

Conrey, P. J., and James, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 P. 26, 40 Cal. App. 111, 1919 Cal. App. LEXIS 77, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patten-davies-lumber-co-v-inman-calctapp-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack