Irwin v. Weinstein

TUTTLE, J.,

pro tem.

This is an action to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff through the

[113]

fraud of defendant in the exchange of real property. The trial was had before a jury, and a verdict of $55,000 returned in favor of plaintiff. The appeal is from the judgment entered upon the verdict.

Plaintiff was the owner of an interest in certain real property in Seattle, Washington, which she alleged was worth $75,000, and which was subject to a mortgage of $20,000. Herman Kronfield was the owner of what is known as the “First Avenue” property in said city. After negotiations between the parties and their agents, an exchange of these properties was effected. It was alleged in the complaint that defendant, as the agent of Kronfield and acting in connivance with the latter, made false representations in respect to the value of the “First Avenue” property; the income therefrom; its condition and state of repair and many other matters.

While appellant does not definitely so state, we would gather from his “argument” that he relies upon the insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. Assuming that he had this idea in view, he is precluded from urging the point for the reason that he has failed to comply with the provisions of section 953e of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appeal being taken under the “alternative method”. The record in the case covers some fifteen hundred pages of typewritten transcript, and appellant has failed “to print in his brief or in a supplement appended thereto, such portions of the record as they desire to call to the attention of the court”. In all, about half a dozen questions and answers are quoted from the record. We do not feel called upon, under such circumstances, to assume the vexatious burden of an examination of the typewritten record.

(Eddy

v.

Stowe,

43 Cal. App. 789 [185 Pac. 1024].) The insufficiency of the evidence to support a particular point raised will not be considered unless printed in the briefs.