Birkland

Birkland v. Ratteree Land Co.

Good Law
125 Cal. App. 747·1932 Cal. App. LEXIS 650·14 P.2d 133
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 13, 1932Docket No. 8379.California336 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Conrey, J.

The defendant appealed from a judgment whereby the plaintiff recovered damages for alleged fraud committed by the defendant in the course of certain real estate transactions with the plaintiff. The record on appeal having been filed, appellant on May 14, 1932, filed its opening brief. Now comes the respondent and moves the court to affirm the judgment upon the ground that appellant has failed to comply with the rules governing appeals, and particularly has not complied with the requirement of rule VIII, that “The pleadings need not be printed in such briefs, but the nature of the action and the substance of the pleadings must be stated in general terms.”

An inspection of the seventeen-page brief filed by appellant reveals that appellant has failed to comply with the rule. It is stated in the brief that the case naturally falls into two classes which are referred to as the first cause of action and the second cause of action. While we have spoken of the action as one to recover damages for fraud, this is true only as a general statement. Possibly it may be subject to a different description. There is not in the brief any statement of the pleadings whereby the issues presented to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.