California Savings & Commercial Bank v. Canne

[769]

THE COURT.

In this ease we cannot find sufficient in the printed extracts from the record, as contained in appellant's brief, to warrant our ordering other than an affirmance of the judgment. The judgment-roll is not printed in the brief, which leaves us without information presented in the way required by the law, as to the issues. Without this inf ormation, we cannot determine questions of the relevancy of the testimony offered, refused, or received, or the matter of the correctness of instructions given or withheld from the jury. While the alternative method of appeal permits parties to file typewritten transcripts in lieu of printed judgment-rolls and bills of exception, such permission casts no burden upon the appellate courts to examine the typewritten documents in deciding the appeal. The statute expressly provides in such eases that: “In filing briefs on said appeal the parties must, however, print in their briefs, or in a supplement appended thereto, such portions of the record as they desire to call to the attention of the court.” (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 953c.) Both the supreme court and this court have repeatedly pointed to the provision of the statute in this regard.

(Marcucci

v.

Vowinckel,

164 Cal. 693, [130 Pac. 430];

Wills

v.

Woolner,

21 Cal. App. 528, [132 Pac. 283] ;

Miller

v.

Oliver,

174 Cal. 407, [163 Pac. 357];

Pasadena Realty Co.

v.

Clune, ante,

p. 33, [166 Pac.

1025]; McKinnell

v.