Salinas v. Riverside Finance Co.

MARKS, J.

This is an appeal from an order refusing to vacate a default and a default ' judgment, which motion was made under the provisions of section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The action was filed September 8, 1931, and personal service of summons was had on appellant. Its default for failure to appear was taken October 17, 1931. Judgment was rendered after evidence was taken on November 16, 1931. A notice of motion to vacate the default and the judgment on the grounds of mistake, inadvertence, surprise and excusable neglect was filed November 28, 1931, and denied December 14, 1931. This appeal followed.

[676]

Appellant has presented a typewritten transcript which is denominated a “Clerk’s Transcript”, in which is the judgment-roll, except the summons, a copy of the minute order denying the motion, a proposed answer, the notice of motion to which three affidavits are attached, the notice of appeal and certificates by the trial judge and the county clerk. There is no bill of exceptions. The certificates of the judge and the county clerk are so nearly similar to those quoted in

Guyot

v.

Cassab,

118 Cal. App. 742 [5 Pac. (2d) 912], that it will be unnecessary to detail them here.

The record in the instant case is so parallel to that in the Guyot case that it furnishes us with authority for holding here that “the record before us not being authenticated either as required by the rule of court or any provision of the law, we cannot consider it”.

(Guyot

v.

Cassab, supra.)

The following authorities support this conclusion: Sec. 951, Code Civ. Proc.;

Clark

y.

McCain,

107 Cal. App. 668 [290 Pac. 901];