Schurman v. Look

California Supreme Court

Schurman v. Look

210 P. 816, 190 Cal. 113, 1922 Cal. LEXIS 273

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 20, 1922

DocketSac. No. 3392.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 210 P. 816 (Schurman v. Look) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Schurman v. Look, 210 P. 816, 190 Cal. 113, 1922 Cal. LEXIS 273 (Cal. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

The motion of the respondent, Halleck Hart Look, to require the appellant to print additional evidence not in his brief is denied.

The code provides that “in filing briefs on said appeal the parties must, however, print in their briefs, or in a supplement appended thereto, such portions of the record as they desire to call to the attention of the court.” (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 953c.) The appellant, it must be presumed, has done so. The respondent may print in his brief such portions of the record as he relies on. It is proper to add that in doing so it is not necessary for him to print every part of the record. It is sufficient for him to state the substance of the evidence. For illustration, where the evidence is produced by question and answer, he may give only the answer where it sufficiently explains the question to which it was presented. In this way the re *114 spondent can. very much abridge the evidence he desires to have presented. Other methods of abbreviation will doubtless occur to the respondent.

Shaw, C. J., Wilbur, J., Lennon, J., Sloane, J., and Lawlor, J., concurred.

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

THE COURT.

The motion of the respondent, Halleck Hart Look, to require the appellant to print additional evidence not in his brief is denied.

The code provides that “in filing briefs on said appeal the parties must, however, print in their briefs, or in a supplement appended thereto, such portions of the record as they desire to call to the attention of the court.” (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 953c.) The appellant, it must be presumed, has done so. The respondent may print in his brief such portions of the record as he relies on. It is proper to add that in doing so it is not necessary for him to print every part of the record. It is sufficient for him to state the substance of the evidence. For illustration, where the evidence is produced by question and answer, he may give only the answer where it sufficiently explains the question to which it was presented. In this way the re *114 spondent can. very much abridge the evidence he desires to have presented. Other methods of abbreviation will doubtless occur to the respondent.

Shaw, C. J., Wilbur, J., Lennon, J., Sloane, J., and Lawlor, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 P. 816, 190 Cal. 113, 1922 Cal. LEXIS 273, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schurman-v-look-cal-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack