This is an appeal from an order vacating the default of defendant, and vacating a judgment entered after the entry of such default, and permitting defendant to file its answer.

The record on appeal is in such form that we cannot consider any of the questions presented and argued in the briefs of counsel as there is no proper authentication of any part of the record except the judgment roll.

The record is typewritten and consists of a clerk’s transcript and a purported reporter’s transcript.

The clerk’s transcript, besides containing the judgment roll, minus a formal judgment, the order appealed from, and the notice of appeal, contains the notice of defendant’s motion, affidavits of both parties in support of and contesting the motion, minutes of the court on the trial and on the hearing and decision of the motion. This transcript has annexed to it the usual certificate of the county clerk but there is no certificate of the trial judge.

In speaking of a similarly authenticated clerk’s transcript, the Supreme Court in Stern & Goodman Inv. Co. v. Danziger, 206 Cal. 456 [ 274 Pac. 748 ] said:

To properly understand the purported reporter’s transcript it is necessary to bear in mind the various dates which are important here.

The order to the clerk to enter the default is dated August 11, 1937. We can find no record of the entry of any default by the clerk or by the court. A copy of the court minutes of November 9, 1937, shows the case was tried on behalf of plaintiffs on that day. Evidence was taken and the cause submitted to the court. The minutes of November 12, 1937, contain an order for judgment, totaling $2,773.31, in favor of plaintiffs. A notice of motion to vacate the de fault and judgment and to permit defendant to answer, with supporting affidavits, was filed on November 22, 1937. Counter affidavits were filed on behalf of plaintiffs on December 1 and 2, 1937. The court minutes show that defendant’s motion was made, argued, submitted and granted on December 10, 1937.

The certificate of the reporter to the reporter’s transcript recites that he was in court on November 9, 1937, and reported the trial on that day. None of the evidence then taken is in the record. His certificate concludes as follows:

It is clear that the so-called reporter’s transcript can by no stretch of the imagination be classified as such. Such a record is a transcription of the reporter’s notes at the trial and the proceedings on motion for new trial. (Sec. 953a, Code Civ. Proc.) While the reporter was present at the trial on November 9, 1937, these notes were not transcribed and he was not present at the hearing of the motion. The so-called reporter’s transcript is nothing more than a copy of the clerk’s records which are also copied in the clerk’s transcript. We know of no authority of law giving the court reporter the right to make any such transcript, or, giving this court the right to consider it, if made, as a reporter’s transcript.

The certificate of the trial judge to the so-called reporter’s transcript is as follows:

Section 951 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides as follows:

Rule XXIX, Rules for the Supreme Court and District Courts of Appeal, provides as follows:

In Guyot v. Cassab, 118 Cal. App. 742 [ 5 Pac. (2d) 912 ], we had before us a certificate of the trial judge substantially in the same form as the one in the instant ease. We there held that the certificate was too incomplete to permit us to consider the record. Neither certificate states that any of the papers in either of the records were used on the hearings in the courts below. In that case we said:

It follows that the only record we have before us is the judgment roll which does not disclose any error in granting the defendant’s motion.

A record on appeal must show error or the order appealed from must be affirmed. (Golish v. Van Pelt, 109 Cal. App. 257 [ 292 Pac. 1010 ].)

Although the record is imperfect we have examined it and have concluded that there was no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge in granting defendant’s motion.

The order is affirmed.

Barnard, P. J., and Griffin, J., concurred.