MEHOLLIN v. YSUCHIYAMA et al.†
Respondent has presented a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that appellant in his opening brief has not complied with the provisions of rule 8, sections 2 and 3, of the Rules of the Supreme Court and District Courts of Appeal, also on the ground that appellant has failed to comply with the provisions of section 953c of the Code of Civil Procedure.
It is provided in section 2 of rule 8 that “a statement of the question involved on an appeal in a civil action shall be set forth on the first page of appellant's opening brief.” Under the heading “Statement of Questions Involved,” appellant has printed in his brief the following: “Statement of issues involved herein (Point I). 2. General statement of the evidence adduced (Point II). 3. Respondents had no right under the contract, or under the law to use the aisle for the purposes of business (Point III). 4. Reason given by respondents for having boxes in the aisle had passed (Point IV). 5. Duty of owner of stall selling vegetables, with adjoining aisle (Point V). 6. Trial Court was in error in failing to give Appellant's Requested Instruction No. 18 (Point VI). 7. Respondents' Instruction No. 3–A reversible error (Point VII). 8. Trial Court in error in giving Respondents' Instruction ‘D’.” The matter thus set forth is not a statement of the questions involved on the appeal and is not of such assistance to the court as was contemplated upon the adoption of rule 8. Ferslew v. Andersen, 11 Cal.App.(2d) 400, 53 P.(2d) 768; Kindred v. Pacific Automobile Ins. Co. (Cal.App.) 66 P.(2d) 1252.
Appellant complains of the action of the trial court in failing to give certain instructions requested by him and in giving certain instructions requested by respondent. Appellant has not complied with section 3 of rule 8, which provides that all other instructions bearing upon the subject must be printed in full in appellant's brief.
Appellant did not in his opening brief “present each point separately under an appropriate heading, showing the nature of the question to be presented.” There is no direct and specific statement of error shown by the record. As stated in Adams v. Standard Acc. Ins. Co., 124 Cal.App. 393, 12 P.(2d) 464: “such assignment of error should take the form of one or more stated propositions, which, if sustained, would lend reasonable support to appellant's demand for reversal of the judgment.”
The appeal is dismissed.
I concur: CRAIL, P. J.