Fischer

Under the provisions of Eule V of the Eules for the Supreme Court and the District Courts of Appeal, the respondent has presented to this court his motion to dismiss the appeal herein, or to affirm the judgment from which'such appeal is taken.

The judgment was the outcome of an action for damages which resulted from a collision, alleged to have been occasioned by the negligence of the driver of a truck of which the defendant was the owner, with an automobile which at the time when the accident occurred belonged to and was being operated by plaintiff.

Each of several points presented in the opening brief of appellants for a reversal of the judgment is founded upon the alleged contributory negligence of plaintiff, and is predicated upon the claim that at the time when the accident occurred the brakes of plaintiff's automobile were not in the condition required by the terms of section 94 of the California Vehicle Act, which, among other things, provides that “it shall be unlawful for any person to operate on any public highway any motor vehicle . . . unless equipped with brakes adequate to bring such motor vehicle ... to a complete stop when operated upon dry asphalt or concrete…