People Ex Rel. Department of Public Works v. Henry

DUNIWAY, J.

This is an action by the People to collect from defendant the cost of moving a water main located in Marsh Road, San Mateo County. The People had judgment, and defendant appeals.

Respondent correctly points out that appellant’s brief does not comply with rule 15(a), Rules on Appeal. His points are not stated separately, nor are they under appropriate headings. The only headings in the brief are ‘ ‘ Statement of Facts ’ ’ and “Contentions of Appellant,” and there is no logical or other breakdown or organization of the contentions. Such “headings” and lack of organization are of no help to us, and we could well dismiss the appeal on that ground.

(Hawkins

v.

Doolittle,

113 Cal.App. 619 [298 P. 862].) The rule is an old one, and should be observed, as doing so produces a brief that is better organized and is thus more helpful both to the court and to counsel. However, because to dismiss the appeal would be to penalize the appellant for the inadequacy of counsel’s brief, we consider the appeal on its merits.

(Cf. Olson

v.

Glens Falls Insurance Co.,

181 Cal.App.2d 165, 167 [5 Cal.Rptr. 233].)

It appears to be the contention of appellant that the evidence does not support the findings and the latter do not support the judgment. The attack, however, is not upon all of the findings. We state the facts as found.

The water main, owned by defendant doing business as Friendly Acres Water Company, was a 3%-inch welded steel pipeline and was located in Marsh Road, a county highway. Under an agreement between the state and the county, a portion of the road (an approach to the Bayshore Freeway) was to be reconstructed by the state. This required relocation of the pipe, which was done by the state at a cost of $7,807.38, which was the reasonable cost of doing the job. Appellant “had no permit, franchise, license, easement, or other right for the installation or maintenance of his said water pipe line in Marsh Road.” The quoted language is the only portion of the findings attacked. It is sustained by ample evidence, and on appeal it matters not that contrary evidence was offered by appellant and received by the trial court. That court, not this court, resolves conflicts in the evidence.