THOMPSON v. MUNICIPAL BOND CO.†
This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of respondent after trial before the court without a jury, in an action ex contractu.
This is the sole question necessary for us to determine:
Has appellant in his opening brief complied with the requirements of rule VIII, section 2, of the Rules of the Supreme Court and District Courts of Appeal of the State of California by presenting each point separately under an appropriate heading showing the nature of the questions to be presented or the points to be made?
This question must be answered in the negative. It is settled that to meet the requirements of rule VIII, section 2 (Rules of the Supreme Court and District Courts of Appeal of the State of California, page 10), the assignment of error must take the form of one or more stated propositions which, if sustained, will lend support to appellant's demand for a reversal of the judgment. Adams v. Standard Accident Ins. Co., 124 Cal.App. 393, 394, 12 P. (2d) 464; Graybeal v. Press–Telegram Publishing Co., 14 Cal.App.(2d) 252, 253, 57 P.(2d) 1343; Lady v. Smith (Cal.App.) 65 P.(2d) 76.
In Lady v. Smith, supra, the headings in appellant's brief were these:
(1) Introductory Statement.
(2) Statement of the Case.
In the instant case the headings in appellant's brief are:
(1) The Principle as Seen by Plaintiff.
(2) The Principle as Seen by Defendant.
(3) Statement of the Case.
(4) Detailed Statement.
(5) In the Present Action the Plaintiff's Case Is on the Contract.
(6) The Contract of March 14th, 1932.
(7) The Defense.
(8) The Decision.
(9) Action for Deceit Affirms Contract and Is Not Inconsistent With It.
(10) Nature of Action No. 364,437.
(11) The Original Liability of Officers and Directors Is of Primary Importance as Showing Damage in an Action for Deceit in Inducing a Contract of Release.
(12) Five Requirements of Action for Deceit.
(13) Facts Show Right of Action for Deceit.
(14) Defendant's Letter of June 29th, 1934.
(15) Plaintiff's Letter of July 18th, 1934.
(16) Defendant's Letter of August 1st, 1934.
(17) Letters Confirm Nature of Action.
(18) Amended Complaints Assume Fraud.
(19) Plaintiff Waived No Rights While Action No. 364,437 Was Pending.
(20) Pending Rights at Time of Dismissal.
(21) Authority of Attorney.
(22) Complaints Only Evidence Against Plaintiff.
(23) Compromise Agreement Not a Sales Contract.
(25) No Intention to Abandon Contract Shown.
(26) No Evidence Against Plaintiff of Failure of Consideration.
(27) Supposing There Was No Right of Action.
(28) Res Adjudicata.
(29) Election of Remedies.
(31) Acceleration Clause.
(32) Insolvency Is a Breach of Contract.
As stated in Kindred v. Pacific Automobile Insurance Company (Cal.App.) 66 P.(2d) 1252, a recent case involving a similar question, it is manifest that appellant has failed to meet the requirements of rule VIII, section 2, supra.
This court has repeatedly held that it will not assume the task of searching the record for the purpose of discovering errors not pointed out by counsel, and in the present case appellant has failed to direct our attention to any error of the trial court. It is the duty of counsel to comply with the requirements of rule VIII in its entirety. Battson v. Kirkpatrick, 11 Cal.App.(2d) 283, 53 P.(2d) 762; Ferslew v. Andersen, 11 Cal.App.(2d) 400, 53 P.(2d) 768; Bernstein v. Congregation Anshi Sfart, 14 Cal.App.(2d) 96, 57 P.(2d) 954. This rule is not a mere technical requirement but is prescribed for the purpose of facilitating disposition of questions upon appeal and directing the court's attention to the specific errors of law alleged to have been committed by the trial court.
For the foregoing reasons the appeal is dismissed.
We concur: CRAIL, P. J.; WOOD, J.