HOLLAND v. KODIMER (1937)

This is an appeal from an order denying appellant's motion to set aside and recall executions levied on a judgment obtained against him. Respondent has made a motion to dismiss the appeal.

This is the sole question necessary for us to determine:

Has appellant in his opening brief complied with the requirements of rule 8, 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 8, section 2 (Rules of the Supreme Court and District Courts of Appeal of the State of California, p. 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 Insurance 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 the instant case the headings in appellant's brief are:

(1) STATEMENT OF THE CASE.

(2) ARGUMENT

Preliminary Statement.

(3) POINTS AND AUTHORITIES Summary.

(4) I. The Levies of Execution Heretofore Made Herein Upon Property of the Appellant Are Null and Void, Being Premature and Without Authority of Law.

(5) II. Upon the Judgment Record in This Case, the Respondent Can Never Have Recourse Against the Appellant.

(6) Conclusion.

It is manifest that appellant has failed to meet the requirements of rule 8, section 2, supra. Thompson v. Municipal Bond Co. (Cal.App.) 68 P.(2d) 258.

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 8 in its entirety. Battson v. Kirk patrick, 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, etc., 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.

McCOMB, Justice.

I concur: CRAIL, P. J.