Currier v. Oakland Association

SPENCE, Acting P. J.

Plaintiff, as assignee of William H. Hollander, brought this action against defendant Oakland

[372]

Association, a corporation, also known as the Oakland Base Ball Club, to.recover the sum of $1500 as the alleged reasonable value of the services of plaintiff’s assignor in negotiating the “sale” for the sum of $15,000 of “Buzz” Arlett, a baseball player under contract with defendant, to the Philadelphia national league club. Prom a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals.

In examining appellant’s opening brief we find that there are no headings “showing the nature of the question to be presented or the point to be made” as required by section 2 of Rule VIII of the Rules for the Supreme Court and District Courts of Appeal. The only headings are “Statement of the ease”, “Argument”, “The law”, “Evidence”, “Summary of evidence” and “Conclusion”. These headings are insufficient to comply with the rule and we again call attention to the penalties which may be imposed for failure to meet the requirements. (Sec. 4 of said Rule VIII;

Herlihy

v.

Ward,

129 Cal. App. 434 [18 Pac. (2d) 992];

Landa

v.

Steinberg,

126 Cal. App. 324 [14 Pac. (2d) 532];

Frank Graves Sash, Door & Mill Co.

v.

Keener,

127 Cal. App. 410 [16 Pac. (2d) 195] ;

Skipitarey

v.

Fitts,

128 Cal. App. 191 [17 Pac. (2d) 159] ;

Milano

v.

Bulleri,