Cunnison

Defendant Evans prosecutes this appeal from an order made by the trial court denying the motion of said defendant to have set aside a judgment taken against him after service of summons and complaint had been regularly made and default entered. The notice of appeal also states that the defendant appeals from the “deficiency judgment made and entered against him in said action.”

The appeal is taken under the so-called and most unsatisfactory “alternative method,” but appellant has failed to follow the statute in that no part of the record to which he desires to call attention is printed in his brief. Having omitted to comply with the direction of the statute in that regard, no duty is imposed upon this court to examine the typewritten transcript. (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, 407 , [ 163 Pac. 355, 357 ]; Pasadena Realty Co. v. Clune, ante, p. 33, [166 Pac. 1025]; McKinnell v. Hansen, ante, p. 76, [ 167 Pac. 887 ].)

We have, however, looked over the briefs and in an abstract way considered the propositions argued therein. The appellant, it is stated, was the mortgagee…