Easterly

By the opening brief in this case we are told that the appeal taken by the plaintiff is from a judgment adjudging that the plaintiff was not the owner of certain horses alleged to have been held under attachment process by the defendant constable in a suit of one Hull v. A. F. Narver. The appeal is taken by the alternative method, which requires the parties to print in their briefs such portions of the record as they may desire to call to the attention of the court. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 953c.) No part of the judgment-roll is printed in the brief of appellant, and we are left without record information as to what the cause of action was or the issues made between the parties. For that reason alone the judgment should be affirmed. (Marcucci v. Vowinckel, 164 Cal. 693 , [ 130 Pac. 430 ]; Wills v. Woolner, 21 Cal. App. 528 , [ 132 Pac. 283 ] ; Miller v. Oliver, 174 Cal. 404 , [ 163 Pac. 357 ]; Pasadena Realty Co. v. Clune, 34 Cal. App. 33 , [ 166 Pac. 1025 ]; McKinnell v. Hansen, 34 Cal. App. 76 , [ 167 Pac. 887 ]; Lillard v. Abbot Hardware Co., 34 Cal. App. 719 , [ 168 Pac. 707 ] ; California Sav. etc. Bank v. Canne, 34 Cal. App. 768 , [ 169 Pac. 395 ].)

The main point upon which…