MORGAN SONS v. BRADNER

Reset A A Font size: Print

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

J. S. MORGAN & SONS v. BRADNER et al.

Civ. 8920.

Decided: December 19, 1934

W. W. Middlecoff, of Los Angeles, and L. J. Difani, of Riverside, for appellant. Jerold E. Weil, of Los Angeles, for respondents.

Plaintiff sued defendants, as executors of the estate of Walter H. Morgan, deceased, on a complaint which set out its claim in count 1 as based on certain promissory notes, in count 2 on an open book account, and in counts 3 and 4 on an account stated. The trial court found that the indebtedness had been incurred by deceased as set out in count 1, but that it was barred by the statute of limitations, and that no such indebtedness had been incurred as to the remaining counts. Judgment was rendered for defendants.

This appeal is on the judgment roll, no bill of exceptions or reporter's transcript being presented. In the clerk's transcript is a “stipulation of facts,” which is not part of the judgment roll (Code Civ. Proc. § 670; San Francisco Savings Union v. Myers, 76 Cal. 624, 18 P. 686), and cannot be considered on appeal (Jeffords v. Young, 197 Cal. 224, 239 P. 1054). The findings support the judgment. We must assume that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the findings (Porter v. Hilton, 214 Cal. 705, 298 P. 501, 7 P.(2d) 301), and therefore the questions raised by appellant predicated on the alleged insufficiency of the evidence cannot be considered on this appeal.

Judgment affirmed.

SCOTT, Justice pro tem.

We concur: STEPHENS, P. J.; CRAIL, J.