Glogau

This appeal is on the judgment roll. Having no evidence for review on the merits, all presumptions and intendments favor the correctness of the judgment. (R ounds v. Dippolito, 94 Cal.App.2d 412, 417 [ 210 P.2d 893 ].) By including in the record numerous docu ments not pertinent to the narrow issues thus presented, the scope of the appeal is not thereby widened. (Hunt v. Plavsa, 103 Cal.App.2d 222, 224 [ 229 P.2d 482 ].)

Plaintiff as assignee of Abraham Gottfried sued for $15,000 on account of legal services alleged to have been rendered to appellants. Judgment was ultimately entered for the sum of $4,100 against J. A. Hagan and Evert L. Hagan. Since the filing of this appeal, J. A. Hagan deceased and Evert as the administrator of the estate of his brother was duly substituted as a party appellant. Inasmuch as the claims were reassigned to Gottfried, he is the actual respondent. The denial of recovery on some claims and awarding judgment on others and the reasons therefor have no place in this discussion. The appeal is based upon asserted technical denials of alleged lawful rights in the course of the litigation. Only the merits of such claims can be of interest now.

No Ereob In…