Isaacs v. Jones

SPENCE, J.

The intervener, J. Edgar Ross, has appealed upon the judgment roll from a judgment awarding to plaintiff Charles Isaacs the sum of $707.01, which was the balance deposited with the clerk of the court by the receiver appointed in the above-entitled action.

Appellant’s brief contains the following headings: “Statement of Facts”, “Summary of Pleadings” and “Argument”. It fails to present “each point separately under an appropriate heading, showing the nature of the question to be presented or the point to be made”. (Sec. 2, Rule VIII of the Rules for the Supreme Court and District Courts of Appeal.) Such failure would justify a dismissal of the appeal. (Sec. 4 of said Rule VIII;

Cunnyngham

v.

Mason-McDuffie Co., Inc.,

218 Cal. 196 [22 Pac. (2d) 515], and cases cited.)

We have nevertheless examined the briefs and find no merit in appellant’s points. The sum awarded to respondent Charles Isaacs represented the balance of rents collected by the receiver who was appointed in this action which was brought to obtain specific performance of the provisions of a deed of trust relating to such rents.

(Mines

v.

Superior Court,

216 Cal. 776 [16 Pac. (2d) 732].) Said respondent was the beneficiary under the deed of trust and the purchaser at the foreclosure sale. Appellant was the purchaser upon an execution sale in another action. Said- rents were collected by the receiver prior to the foreclosure sale, but after the execution sale and during the period allowed for redemption therefrom. Appellant claims he was entitled to said rents under the provisions of section 707 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But the deed of trust was executed and recorded prior to the levy of attachment in the other action and had priority over the attachment. Appellant, as purchaser at the execution sale, acquired no greater rights than those of the judgment debtor and we therefore conclude that the trial court properly awarded the balance of said rents to respondent Charles Isaacs.

Appellant questions the form of the deed of trust and apparently claims that rents were not made security for the

[100]