Easterly v. Praul (1917) · DecisionDepot

Easterly v. Praul

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Court of Appeal Oct 18, 1917 No. Civ. No. 2287.Published

Before: James

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the judgment against the plaintiff, holding that the third-party claim was legally insufficient and that the trial court's findings were supported by evidence and the presumption of ownership arising from possession.

Issues

Whether the judgment should be affirmed due to the appellant's failure to print the judgment-roll in the brief.
Whether the third-party claim was in sufficient form to charge the defendant with liability.
Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's findings regarding ownership.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“No part of the judgment-roll is printed in the brief of appellant, and we are left without record information as to what the cause of action was or the issues made between the parties. For that reason alone the judgment should be affirmed.”

“We think the third-party claim was not in sufficient form to charge the defendant with liability.”

“In view of the presumption imposed by the code provision, that Narver was the owner of the property found in his possession, it was for the trial judge to determine the credibility of the witnesses”

Synopsis

Appeal — Alternative Method — Becord and Contents.—Judgment should be affirmed tor failure to print any part of judgment-roll with the brief.

Attachment—Third-party Claim.—Unverified demand is insufficient although “acknowledged” before a notary.

[40]

JAMES, J.

By the opening brief in this case we are told that the appeal taken by the plaintiff is from a judgment adjudging that the plaintiff was not the owner of certain horses alleged to have been held under attachment process by the defendant constable in a suit of one Hull

A. F. Narver. The appeal is taken by the alternative method, which requires the parties to print in their briefs such portions of the record as they may desire to call to the attention of the court. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 953c.) No part of the judgment-roll is printed in the brief of appellant, and we are left without record information as to what the cause of action was or the issues made between the parties. For that reason alone the judgment should be affirmed.

(Marcucci

Vowinckel,

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

Wills

Woolner,

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

Miller

Oliver,

174 Cal. 404, [163 Pac. 357];

Pasadena Realty Co.

Clune,

34 Cal. App. 33, [166 Pac. 1025];

McKinnell

Hansen,

34 Cal. App. 76, [167 Pac. 887];

Lillard

Abbot Hardware Co.,

Easterly v. Praul

AI Brief

Synopsis

JAMES, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief