BATTSON v. KIRKPATRICK

Reset A A Font size: Print

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

BATTSON v. KIRKPATRICK.

Civ. 10658.

Decided: January 17, 1936

F. E. Davis, of Hollywood, for appellant. O'Melveny, Tuller & Myers and B. E. Ahlport, all of Los Angeles, for respondent.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of respondent after a trial before a court without a jury.

Appellant has failed in his opening brief to present each point separately under an appropriate heading, showing the nature of the question to be presented and the point to be made. Sec. 2, rule VIII, of the District Court of Appeal. Mr. Justice Conrey, in Adams v. Standard Accident Ins. Co., 124 Cal.App. 393, at page 394, 12 P.(2d) 464, then Presiding Justice of the District Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, in commenting upon this provision of rule VIII, supra, accurately states the requirement thus: “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.”

Appellate courts cannot be expected to assume the task of searching the record for the purpose of discovering errors not pointed out by counsel. It is the duty of counsel to comply with rule VIII, supra, and by argument and citation of authorities to show that the claimed error exists.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed.

McCOMB, Justice pro tem.

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