Burnham

Rogers v. Burnham

Good Law
136 Cal. App. 745·1934 Cal. App. LEXIS 965·29 P.2d 806
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 17, 1934Docket No. 1107.California298 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Barnard, J.

This is a motion to dismiss the appeal or affirm the judgment on the grounds that the court erred in relieving the appellant from her default in the matter of filing a bill of exceptions within the statutory time; that for this reason the court had no jurisdiction to settle a bill of exceptions; and that the points raised in the opening brief are so unsubstantial as to require no further argument.

The case is one involving compensation for services claimed to have been rendered to a deceased person, and the appeal is based upon the contention that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain findings to the effect that such services were not rendered and that there was no account stated between the parties.

The points and authorities in support of this motion are very brief and consist mostly of references to certain portions of the transcript. The nature of the point raised on the appeal, and the manner in which this motion is presented, obviously require an examination of the transcript. (See City of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles-Inyo Farms Co., 126 Cal. App. 61 [ 14 Pac. (2d) 339 ] ; Brown v. Cow, 126 Cal. App. 113 [ 14 Pac. (2d) 322 ]; Inga v. Blum, 132 Cal. App. 15 [ 22 Pac.…

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.