Pitt v. Pensinger

California Court of Appeal

Pitt v. Pensinger

173 P. 598, 37 Cal. App. 199, 1918 Cal. App. LEXIS 277

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedMay 10, 1918

DocketCiv. No. 2267.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 173 P. 598 (Pitt v. Pensinger) 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

Pitt v. Pensinger, 173 P. 598, 37 Cal. App. 199, 1918 Cal. App. LEXIS 277 (Cal. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

*200 THE COURT.

The appeal in this case is. taken from a judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff. The appellant in the preparation of his record on appeal has made use of what is known as the alternative method. However, in the preparation of the brief of appellant the provisions of section 953c of the Code of Civil Procedure have not been observed. By that statute it is required that the parties shall print in their briefs such portions of the record as they desire to call to the attention of the appellate court. Where they fail to do this it follows that the appellate tribunal will not look into the typewritten transcript to ascertain whether the points urged as ground for reversal are well made. The brief here presented on behalf of appellant does not contain sufficient of the record in printed form to enable us to say that there is any merit in the appeal. This same question has been considered in a number of cases which are cited in Barker Bros. v. Joos, 36 Cal. App. 311, [171 Pac. 1085], For want of any showing of error, it follows that the judgment appealed from should be affirmed.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

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

*200 THE COURT.

The appeal in this case is. taken from a judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff. The appellant in the preparation of his record on appeal has made use of what is known as the alternative method. However, in the preparation of the brief of appellant the provisions of section 953c of the Code of Civil Procedure have not been observed. By that statute it is required that the parties shall print in their briefs such portions of the record as they desire to call to the attention of the appellate court. Where they fail to do this it follows that the appellate tribunal will not look into the typewritten transcript to ascertain whether the points urged as ground for reversal are well made. The brief here presented on behalf of appellant does not contain sufficient of the record in printed form to enable us to say that there is any merit in the appeal. This same question has been considered in a number of cases which are cited in Barker Bros. v. Joos, 36 Cal. App. 311, [171 Pac. 1085], For want of any showing of error, it follows that the judgment appealed from should be affirmed.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 P. 598, 37 Cal. App. 199, 1918 Cal. App. LEXIS 277, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pitt-v-pensinger-calctapp-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack