Jackson v. Allen (1921) · DecisionDepot

Jackson v. Allen

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

California Court of Appeal Nov 18, 1921 No. Civ. No. 3920.Published

Before: Sturtevant

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the judgment against the defendant, holding that the referees acted within their authority under Code of Civil Procedure section 639 and that the defendant failed to provide a record of the evidence necessary to challenge the findings.

Issues

Whether the referees exceeded their authority under Code of Civil Procedure section 639 by failing to state conclusions of law.
Whether the referees' findings regarding the value of hay and the exclusion of cream check evidence were supported by the evidence.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“as the evidence taken by the referees is not before us, we may not consider whether the statement was in accordance with, or contrary to, the evidence.”

“Allen may not complain of errors that were in his favor.”

Synopsis

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

STURTEVANT, J.

The plaintiff commenced an action against the defendant to obtain a judgment dissolving a partnership and for an accounting of the partnership existing between plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff recovered a judgment for $619.48, and the defendant has appealed under section 953a. The transcript purports to be a transcript by the county clerk setting forth copies of certain papers on file in his office, but the appellant has not brought up any transcript of the proceedings or the evidence. The trial court made an interlocutory judgment on the third

[258]

day of January, 1921, dissolving the partnership on the stipulation of the parties, and ordered a reference to Bur-dick & Baker as referees to state an account between the plaintiff and defendant and thereafter to submit the same to the court for its filial decision. It does not appear whether the testimony and proceedings before the referees were taken down, nor does it appear that any exceptions were taken before the referees, nor does it appear that anything purporting to be the evidence, or purporting to be a record of proceedings had before the referees was thereafter certified to the trial court; however, it does appear by a recital in the findings that the referees prepared a written report; that the defendant made certain objections in writing to the same; that the matter was thereupon referred back to the referees; that they made a supplemental report; that written objections were made to that report, and that thereafter, on April 26th, the report of the referees and the objections thereto were heard in open court, and thereafter the trial court ordered judgment in favor of the plaintiff in accordance with the findings and the report of the referees. At this time the appellant makes certain points which call upon us to reconsider his objections to the report of the referees. Assuming, without deciding, that this court has the power, on this kind of a record, to re-examine such questions, we will attempt to dispose of the issues presented.

[1]

The appellant cites and relies on

Lambert

Smith,

3 Cal. 408,

Jackson v. Allen

AI Brief

Synopsis

STURTEVANT, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief