Kaufman v. Brown

California Court of Appeal Sep 28, 1951 No. Civ. 4263Published

Before: Griffin

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an order requiring a party to prepare a full reporter's transcript is not an appealable order under Code of Civil Procedure section 963, and that the underlying judgment must be affirmed due to an insufficient record.

Issues

Whether an order requiring a party to prepare a full reporter's transcript is an appealable order after final judgment.
Whether the trial court erred in refusing to certify a limited reporter's transcript that failed to comply with the Rules on Appeal.

Disposition. dismissed and affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It is respondents’ argument that the order of the court ordering plaintiff to prepare a full transcript of the testimony, instead of the portion transcribed, within two weeks from the date of the order, is not an appealable order.”

“Since the order involved is not an appealable order, the attempted appeal from it must be dismissed.”

“The record does not support plaintiff’s claim that the trial court erred in respect to the questions presented.”

GRIFFIN, Acting P. J.

Plaintiff and appellant brought this action against defendants and respondents for claimed wrongful arrest and imprisonment. On a former appeal from a judgment of dismissal after sustaining demurrers to the complaint without leave to amend, the judgment was reversed.

(Kaufman

Brown,

93 Cal.App.2d 508 [209 P.2d 156].) The action went to trial, before a jury, upon a second amended complaint, the allegations of which are recited in the former opinion. A judgment of nonsuit resulted as to defendants George, Ulriek, Besnak and Stearns, and was denied as to the remaining defendants. After trial a verdict and judgment in their favor resulted. On December 29, 1950, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the judgment thus entered. On January 8, 1951, counsel for plaintiff gave notice to the clerk of such appeal and requested him to prepare record on appeal to include judgment roll, minutes, and reporter’s transcript. On January 18, 1951, plaintiff filed an amended notice requesting the clerk to prepare the record on appeal and to include the judgment roll, minutes and “limited reporter’s transcript ’ ’ of the testimony of John W. Brown, taken under section 2055, Code of Civil Procedure, the testimony of Cyrus Stearns, and the court’s instructions to the jury. After the clerk gave notice of the completion of the limited reporter’s and clerk’s transcripts, defendants, on February 26, 1951, filed objections thereto upon the ground that the reporter’s transcript was not a full and correct transcript of the oral proceedings provided for in rule 4 of part II, Rules on Appeal, and that plaintiff had not complied with rule 4, subdivision (b), and requested that plaintiff be required to present a complete transcript. On April 6, 1951, plaintiff filed a motion that he be permitted to amend his notice of appeal and to limit the grounds of appeal permitting him to use the incomplete reporter’s transcript previously requested and prepared. The motion and objections thereto were heard on April 6, 1951, and denied. Plaintiff, on April 19, 1951, secured an order from another judge allowing him to proceed

in forma pauperis.

The trial judge found by order duly

[688]

Kaufman v. Brown

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief