White v. Jones

NOURSE (Paul), J. pro tem.

*

This is an action to annul a deed and to quiet plaintiff’s title to certain real property against the claims of defendant.

By her complaint, filed on October 17,1952, plaintiff alleged that the defendant had induced her on the 13th of September, 1949, to sign a deed conveying the property to him and her as joint tenants under the representation that the deed constituted merely a power of attorney. She further alleged that a confidential relationship existed between her and defendant (stepfather and daughter) and that she had not discovered the fraud or had notice of facts which would put her on

[569]

inquiry as to it until a time less than three years before the commencement of the action.

Defendant by his answer denied all the material allegations of the complaint and affirmatively pleaded the statute of limitations. (Code Civ. Proc., § 338, subd. 4.) The trial court made written findings of fact by which it found the allegations of the complaint to be true and the affirmative allegations of the answer untrue. It rendered judgment for plaintiff as prayed.

Appellant does not attack the form of the findings or their sufficiency to support the judgment. His only contention is that the findings (he does not specify which) are contrary to the evidence. Appellant has not taken advantage of either rule 4(a), rule 4(b), rule 6 or rule 7(a) of the Rules on Appeal, so as to bring to this court the oral proceedings or any part thereof. The record on appeal here consists only of the clerk’s transcript which contains the judgment roll and certain documents received in evidence in the court below.

In disposing of appellant’s contention this appeal is therefore to be treated as one on the judgment roll. On such an appeal the question of sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings is not open.

(Estate of Larson,

92 Cal.App. 2d 267 [206 P.2d 852].)

The judgment here can only be attacked for errors which affirmatively appear upon the face of the judgment roll. Appellant cannot broaden the scope of this court’s inquiry by incorporating in the clerk’s transcript the documentary evidence received in the court below.