Powers v. Board of Public Works

THE COURT.

These six consolidated actions were instituted for the purpose of determining the status of certain employees of the city and county of San Francisco and to recover wages claimed to be due plaintiffs as such employees. Judgments were rendered in favor of the respective plaintiffs, and the defendants appealed. In doing so they elected to present the appeals on records prepared under the alternative method provided for by section 953a et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs now move to affirm the judgments upon the grounds, first, that the several points urged for reversal have been heretofore determined adversely to defendants’ contentions in the case of

Rodgers

v.

Board of Public Works,

208 Cal. 291 [281 Pac. 64] ; and secondly, that although the appeals were taken under the alternative method defendants have wholly failed to conform to the requirements of the statute or court rules governing such appeals in that they have not printed in their brief or in a supplement appended thereto any portion of the record relied upon by them in support of the grounds they urge for reversal. (Sec. 953c, Code Civ. Proc.; Rule VIII, Supreme Court and District Courts of Appeal.)

The question of whether the decision in

Rodgers

v.

Board of Public Works, supra,

is controlling in the determi

[121]

nation of the present appeals is one which necessarily will require an examination of the record and a consideration of the appeals on their merits; and such an examination and consideration cannot be undertaken on a motion of this character.

(Haines

v.

Commerce Mortgage Co.,

205 Cal. 71 [269 Pac. 921].) We are of the opinion, however, that the second contention made by plaintiffs to the effect that defendants’ briefs do not conform to the requirements of the statute and the court rule above mentioned must be sustained.