Barrett v. Tewksbury

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1860Published

Before: Field

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a statement on appeal must specify the grounds of appeal as required by statute, rather than merely providing a transcript of evidence. While the court affirmed the judgment due to the defective statement, it allowed parties in pending cases to file specifications of error nunc pro tunc to avoid hardship.

Issues

Whether a statement on appeal consisting only of a transcript of evidence complies with statutory requirements.
Whether the requirement to specify grounds of appeal applies equally to cases at law and in equity.
Whether the court should grant a rehearing to allow for the correction of defective statements in pending cases.

Disposition. Affirmed; Rehearing denied.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The specification of the grounds is the essential element of a statement; the evidence is the mere incident.”

“The statement, not complying with the provisions of the statute, is only to be regarded as a transcript of testimony, which we cannot notice.”

“In all pending cases, in which the statements are filed, or prepared and settled, parties will be permitted to file and annex to the statements, in this Court, or in the Court below, the grounds of appeal, nunc pro tunc”

Synopsis

A statement on appeal must specify the grounds on which the appellant relies. The questions of law and fact raised must be distinctly set forth, accompanied with only so much of the evidence as may be necessary to show their pertinency and materiality.

There is no distinction as to the manner in which a statement is to be prepared, between a case at law and a case in equity. The grounds of appeal must, in both cases, be stated; and in both cases, much, if not the greater portion of the evidence, will be immaterial for the determination of these grounds in the Supreme Court.

Where a statement does not contain any specification of the grounds of appeal, it will be regarded as a mere transcript of testimony, and will not be noticed.

There may be some cases of equitable relief, where the general ground of appeal will be that the decree is not warranted by the evidence. Still, in the majority of cases, this general ground will be subject to more particular specification. The proper practice, on this point, stated.

Field, C. J. delivered the opinion of the Court Baldwin, J. and Cope, J. concurring.

The statement in this case is a mere transcript of the evidence, oral and documentary, used on the hearing in the Court below. It covers seventy-nine pages of the record, and does not set forth the grounds upon which the appellants rely on the appeal. In this respect, it fails to comply with the requirements of the statute. The specification of the grounds is the essential element of a statement; the evidence is the mere incident. It is the statement “ of the case,” and not of the evidence, which is to be annexed to the record of the judgment or order appealed from. The case on appeal consists of the questions of law or of fact raised. These must be distinctly set forth, and accompanied with only so much of the evidence as may be necessary to explain and show their pertinency and materiality, and no more. (Prac. Act, sec. 338.) The specification is necessary, in the preparation of the statement, to enable the adverse party to suggest intelligently such amendments as he may deem important to the just determination of the case. Without it, neither the adverse party nor the Judge, can well know [357]how much of the evidence should be set forth. It often happens that of numerous points taken in the progress of the trial, the greater number, after mature consideration, are abandoned by counsel, and the appeal made to rest upon only one or two of them. In such instances, a large portion of the testimony actually given, becomes entirely immaterial on appeal, but without a specification of the grounds upon which the appellant intends to rely, the adverse party will be ignorant of the materiality of that which is inserted or omitted in the statement.

There is no distinction, as to the manner in which a statement shall be prepared, between a case at law and a case in equity. It is as essential, for every purpose, that the grounds of appeal should be stated in the one case as in the other, and in both cases much, if not the greater portion, of the evidence given in the Court below will be wholly immaterial for the determination of those grounds in this Court,

The statement, not complying with the provisions of the statute, is only to be regarded as a transcript of testimony, which we cannot notice. This view leaves the case to rest upon the judgment roll, and its inspection does not disclose any substantial error.

Judgment affirmed.

Barrett v. Tewksbury

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief