BARROW v. SIMON (1936)

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

BARROW et al. v. SIMON et al.

Civ. 10778.

Decided: April 10, 1936

Black, Hammack & McWilliams, Carey McWilliams, and Alfred L. Black, Jr., all of Los Angeles, for appellant. Chas. E. Carter, Martin M. Levering, and Henry Trowbridge, all of Los Angeles, for respondents. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, of Los Angeles, for Richfield Oil Co. of California. J. B. Quigg, in pro. per.

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

The propositions urged by appellant will not be considered by us, because she has failed to observe the provisions of rule 8, section 3, of this court requiring the party alleging error to print in the briefs the substance of the pleadings in general terms. Rule 8, § 3, p. 10, Rules of the Supreme Court and District Courts of Appeal of the State of California.

This rule is not a mere technical requirement, but is prescribed for the purpose of facilitating the disposition of cases upon appeal and of furnishing this court with complete and adequate information upon which to predicate its judgment.

For the foregoing reason the appeal is dismissed.

McCOMB, Justice pro tem.

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

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network