Metzenbaum v. Metzenbaum

McCOMB, J.

Plaintiff filed an action against defendants seeking dissolution of a partnership and an accounting. Defendant Murray Metzenbaum filed a cross-complaint involving the same properties and partnership transactions referred to in the complaint. The trial court found in favor of defendant and cross-complainant Murray Metzenbaum and against plaintiff and cross-defendants (appellants herein).

Appellants question the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain numerous findings of fact of the trial court, but fail to point out wherein the evidence fails to sustain the questioned findings. Likewise appellants fail in their opening brief to give any references to the transcript of proceedings in the lower

[199]

court which consists of 1,044 pages in the reporter’s transcript.

When it is contended that the evidence does not sustain the trial court’s findings of fact, the appellant must point out in his brief the evidence, and must show wherein the evidence does not sustain the findings.

(Sutro Heights Land Co.

v.

Merced Irr. Hist.,

211 Cal. 670, 687 [296 P. 1088] ;

Wieczorek

v.

Texas Co.,

45 Cal.App.2d 450, 457 [114 P.2d 377].

Cf., People

v.

Corlett,

67 Cal.App.2d 33, 50 [153 P.2d 595, 964];

Hughes

v.

Grandy,

78 Cal.App.2d 555, 568 [177 P.2d 939].) Likewise an appellate court cannot be expected to search through a voluminous record to discover evidence on a point raised by appellant when his brief makes no reference to the pages where the evidence on the point can be found in the record.