Pacific States Corp. v. Rosenshine

California Court of Appeal Aug 11, 1930 No. Docket No. 7393.Published

Before: Conrey

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court denied the motion to dismiss or affirm the judgment, finding that the appellant made a diligent and reasonably successful effort to comply with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 953c and Rule VIII of the Rules of the Supreme Court.

Issues

Whether the appellant failed to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 953c and Rule VIII regarding the printing of the record in the brief.
Whether the appellant's brief sufficiently stated the nature of the action and the substance of the pleadings in accordance with the rules.

Disposition. Motion denied.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the brief for appellant shows a diligent and a reasonably successful effort to comply with the requirements of the code provisions and the rule to which reference has been made.”

“Motion “for an order dismissing the appeal herein and/or an order affirming the judgment appealed from herein” is denied.”

[627]

CONREY, P. J.

Pursuant to notice, respondents have presented their motion for an order dismissing the appeal herein, or for an order affirming the judgment.

The motion is grounded upon the alleged failure of appellant to comply with the provisions of section 953c of the Code of Civil Procedure and failure to comply with rule VIII of the Rules of the Supreme Court, relating to the duty of an appellant to print in his brief or in a supplement thereto such portions of the record as he desires to call to the attention of the court.

In support of their position respondents have cited the decisions of the Supreme Court in

Dahlberg

Dahlberg,

202 Cal. 295 [260 Pac. 290], and

Bryant

Kelly,

203 Cal. 721 [265 Pac. 817], together with numerous earlier decisions referred to in the cited cases.

In the amendment of rule VIII of the Supreme Court, which amendment became effective September 1, 1928, and subsequent to the decisions in the two cases cited, new provisions were adopted into the rule for the purpose of indicating the view of the rule-makers as to what constitutes a substantial compliance with the code section. It was provided in the new rule VIII that “where the parts of the typewritten record relied upon on appeal are required to be printed in the briefs (Code Civ. Proc., secs. 953a et seq.), it shall be sufficient to state therein the substance of such record, parenthetically referring to the line and page of the typewritten transcript for verification, . . . The pleadings need not be printed in such briefs, but the nature of the action and the substance of the pleadings must be stated in general terms. ...”

In the present case it appears that the judgment from which the plaintiff appeals was entered pursuant to an order sustaining demurrers to the first amended complaint in the action, without leave to amend the first count of the complaint, and after failure of the plaintiff to amend the remaining counts of the complaint. The record on appeal, therefore, consists of the clerk’s transcript only.

Pacific States Corp. v. Rosenshine

AI Brief

CONREY, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief