Stout

Defendants appeal solely upon the judgment-roll from a judgment decreeing foreclosure of a mechanic’s lien in the sum of $248.24.

Appellants’ brief fails to comply with rule VIII of the Rules for the Supreme Court and District Courts of Appeal. It contains but two headings, “The Complaint”, and "The Findings”, neither of which heading shows "the nature of the question to be presented”. We again wish to stress the importance of compliance with said rule and to point out that under its provisions an appeal may be dismissed for failure to comply therewith. (Richmond Terminal Corp. v. Parr Terminal Co., 116 Cal. App. 368 [ 2 Pac. (2d) 579 ]; Hawkins v. Doolittle, 113 Cal. App. 619 [ 298 Pac. 862 ].)

Owing to the brevity of appellants’ brief it is not difficult to ascertain that the main contentions are that the complaint and findings are insufficient. No demurrer to the complaint was interposed, but appellants now seek a reversal upon the ground that the complaint, the allegations of which were followed in the findings, contained no direct averment to the effect that the materials were used and that the labor was performed in the construction of the building upon the premises…