Williams v. Hawkins

California Court of Appeal Oct 21, 1912 No. Civ. No. 1212.Published

Before: Shaw

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the appellant failed to comply with procedural requirements for the record on appeal, that the complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action regarding the lease assignment, and that the assignment of a visiting judge by a majority of local judges was legally valid.

Issues

Whether the appellant complied with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 953c regarding the record on appeal.
Whether the complaint sufficiently alleged liability against the assignees of a lease.
Whether a majority of superior court judges may request a judge from another county to preside over a session of the court.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It is the duty of attorneys who choose this method of appeal to comply with the provisions of the act governing the presentation of cases thereunder, and where they wholly fail to so comply, this court will not assume the labor”

“Since the greater contains the less (Civ. Code, sec. 3536), the request here made by seven of the judges would necessarily constitute a request made by one judge.”

Synopsis

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County and from an order denying a new trial. W. M. Conley, Judge presiding.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

SHAW, J.

Action to recover a sum of money alleged to he due as rental under the terms of a lease.

Plaintiff sues as assignee of the lessor of the property, and it is alleged in the complaint and so found that Hawkins and Eager, the defendants,, are assignees of the original lessee.

Judgment went for plaintiff, from which and an order denying his motion for a new trial defendant Eager appeals.

The appeal is presented upon a record prepared and certified in accordance with the provisions of section 953a of the Code of Civil Procedure, designated as the alternative plan of appeal. Under this section no printed transcript of the record is required. “In filing briefs on said appeal the parties must, however, print in their briefs, or in a supplement appended thereto, such portions of the record as they desire to call to the attention of the court.” (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 953c.) No attempt whatever is made by appellant to comply with this provision, and the meager references to the evidence, such as “Rep’s trans., pp. 41-45, lines 13 to 6,” made in his brief are unintelligible. It is the duty of attorneys who choose this method of appeal to comply with the provisions of the act governing the presentation of cases thereunder, and where they wholly fail to so comply, this court will not assume the labor of examining the entire record for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the evidence supports a finding attacked for want of sufficiency of evidence.

It is claimed that the court erred in overruling a general demurrer interposed to the complaint. There was attached to the complaint as a part thereof a copy of the lease. The instruments indorsed thereon, and upon which the judgment rendered against appellant is founded, are as follows:

“Los Angeles, Cal., Oct. 9, 1908.

“For valuable consideration, I hereby transfer and set over all my right, title and interest in and to the within lease, to Ralph S. Hawkins. David DeMunbrun.”

“Los Angeles, Cal., Oct. 9, 1908.

“I hereby agree to assume the within lease assigned to me by the lessee and all responsibility thereunder from date.

Ralph S. Hawkins,

Charles H. Eager.”

[163]

Williams v. Hawkins

AI Brief

Synopsis

SHAW, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief