HAWK v. DE GOEDE (1936)

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

HAWK v. DE GOEDE et ux.

Civ. 10925.

Decided: April 15, 1936

William Ellis Lady, of Los Angeles, for appellant. J. Wiseman MacDonald, of Los Angeles, for respondents.

In this appeal, which is under the alternative method, appellant has failed to comply with section 953c of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads in part as follows: “In filing briefs in said appeal the parties must, however, print in their briefs, or in a supplement appended thereto, such portions of the record as they desire to call to the attention of the court.” Appellant has also failed to comply with section 3, rule VIII, of the Rules for the Supreme Court and District Courts of Appeal, which reads in part as follows: “If it is claimed that pleadings are defective, or that admissions are thereby made affecting the decision on appeal, such portion of the pleadings shall be printed in the brief as may be necessary to an understanding of the matter.” For this reason we have decided to dismiss the appeal. Barrow v. Simon (Cal.App.) 56 P.(2d) 539; and see numerous cases collected in 2 Cal.Jur. 643, § 359 et seq., and the Ten Year Supp. thereto.

The appeal is dismissed.

CRAIL, Presiding Justice.

We concur: WOOD, J.; McCOMB, Justice pro tem.

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Out of date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