KINDRED v. PACIFIC AUTOMOBILE INS CO (1937)

This matter comes before us on a motion by respondent to dismiss the appeal upon the ground, among others, that plaintiff's opening brief does not comply with that portion of rule VIII of the Rules of the Supreme Court and District Courts of Appeal requiring each point to be presented separately “under an appropriate heading, showing the nature of the question to be presented or the point to be made.” There are but two headings or titles in the brief, one denominated “Preliminary” and the other “Argument.” The situation is very similar to that of Skipitarey v. Fitts, 128 Cal.App. 191, 17 P.(2d) 159. As therein stated, it is manifest that respondent's motion is well founded.

The brief also fails to comply with that portion of rule VIII which provides that a statement of the question involved shall be set forth on the first page of the brief. Under the heading “Statement of Questions Involved” appellant sets forth: “Whether: Irregularity in the proceedings prevented plaintiff from having a fair trial; The verdict and judgment is against law; The Court erred in refusing to grant plaintiff's Motion for a New Trial; Errors in law occurring at the trial and excepted to by plaintiff; The evidence of the defendant is sufficient to permit the Court as a matter of law to take the case away from the jury and instruct them to bring in a verdict for the defendant; The verdict and judgment are erroneous and against law.” It is manifest that the foregoing does not contain a statement of the question involved in the appeal and is not of such assistance to the court as was contemplated upon the adoption of rule VIII. Ferslew v. Andersen, 11 Cal.App.(2d) 400, 53 P.(2d) 768.

The appeal is dismissed.

WOOD, Justice.

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