Yount v. Arakalian Bros. Co.

California Court of Appeal

Yount v. Arakalian Bros. Co.

147 P. 467, 26 Cal. App. 472, 1915 Cal. App. LEXIS 223

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedFebruary 4, 1915

DocketCiv. No. 1579.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 147 P. 467 (Yount v. Arakalian Bros. 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

Yount v. Arakalian Bros. Co., 147 P. 467, 26 Cal. App. 472, 1915 Cal. App. LEXIS 223 (Cal. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

JAMES, J.

Respondent brought this action to recover for services performed under a written contract alleged to have been executed by defendant. He had judgment in the lower court, from which this appeal has been prosecuted by the defendant. In addition to the usual papers constituting the judgment-roll, there is printed what purports to be a statement of the case presenting the evidence heard at the trial. It does not appear that this statement was ever settled by the trial judge; nor is there any stipulation attached thereto by reason of which this court would be authorized to take notice of the contents of that statement. It would seem from a note printed on the concluding page of the transcript that the motion for settlement of the statement was by the trial court denied. There is, therefore, nothing presented from which a review of the evidence can be made. Examining the judgment-roll, we find no error which willl warrant a reversal being ordered. The findings of the court seem to support the judgment and to have been within the issues made by the pleadings.

The judgment is, therefore, affirmed.

Conrey, P. J., and Shaw, J., concurred.

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

JAMES, J.

Respondent brought this action to recover for services performed under a written contract alleged to have been executed by defendant. He had judgment in the lower court, from which this appeal has been prosecuted by the defendant. In addition to the usual papers constituting the judgment-roll, there is printed what purports to be a statement of the case presenting the evidence heard at the trial. It does not appear that this statement was ever settled by the trial judge; nor is there any stipulation attached thereto by reason of which this court would be authorized to take notice of the contents of that statement. It would seem from a note printed on the concluding page of the transcript that the motion for settlement of the statement was by the trial court denied. There is, therefore, nothing presented from which a review of the evidence can be made. Examining the judgment-roll, we find no error which willl warrant a reversal being ordered. The findings of the court seem to support the judgment and to have been within the issues made by the pleadings.

The judgment is, therefore, affirmed.

Conrey, P. J., and Shaw, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 P. 467, 26 Cal. App. 472, 1915 Cal. App. LEXIS 223, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yount-v-arakalian-bros-co-calctapp-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack