Reset A A Font size: Print

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California.


Civ. 11242.

Decided: January 19, 1937

Harry J. Miller, of Los Angeles, for appellant. Samuel A. Rosenthal and Charles Murstein, both of Los Angeles, for respondent.

This case comes before us on the motion of the respondent to dismiss the appeal upon the ground that the appellant in his opening brief has failed to comply with the provisions of section 953c of the Code of Civil Procedure and of rule VIII of the Rules of the Supreme Court and District Courts of Appeal. These provide that in filing briefs the parties must 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 or to state therein the substance of such record. This the appellant has failed to do.

The cases are numerous in which it has been held that the appellate courts are not required to assume the “vexatious burden” of searching the typewritten transcript for error or deficiencies. Graybeal v. Press–Telegram Publishing Co. (Cal.App.) 57 P.(2d) 1343; In re Estate of Berry, 195 Cal. 354, 233 P. 330; Scott v. Hollywood Park Co., 176 Cal. 680, 169 P. 379; Marcucci v. Vowinckel, 164 Cal. 693, 130 P. 430; Eddy v. Stowe, 43 Cal.App. 789, 185 P. 1024; Dahlberg v. Dahlberg, 202 Cal. 295, 260 P. 290; Haines v. Commercial Mortgage Co., 205 Cal. 71, 269 P. 921; Bryant v. Kelly, 203 Cal. 721, 265 P. 817; Graham v. Bonestell, 200 Cal. 309, 253 P. 1115. Rather it is the duty of the court to conserve its time to the end that its work may be accomplished with dispatch and that the court may be as nearly caught up with its calendars as is reasonably possible.

The motion is granted.

CRAIL, Presiding Justice.

We concur: WOOD, J.; McCOMB, Justice pro tem.