Siebe

Siebe v. Joshua Hendy Machine Works

Good Law
1890 Cal. LEXIS 1038·86 Cal. 390·25 P. 14
Supreme Court of CaliforniaNovember 15, 1890No. 12905California805 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Hayne, J.

— This was an action upon a promissory-note. The trial court gave judgment for the plaintiffs,, and the defendant appeals.-

*391 We do not think that, upon the record before us, the appellate court can consider the question whether the evidence supports the findings of fact. The record provided by statute for bringing up the evidence is a bill of exceptions, or statement, to be served upon the successful party, and settled and certified by the judge. There is no bill of exceptions, or statement, in the transcript. It is plain, therefore, that, unless there is some equivalent or substitute for the statutory record, the evidence is not before us. What is relied on as such equivalent consists of the following proceedings: After the appeal was taken, appellant filed in the trial court a notice specifying certain points that it would rely on upon the appeal. This document did not contain any of the evidence given at the trial. It does not appear to have been even served upon the respondent, though we suppose that it was. Nothing further seems to have been done in the trial court. The transcript filed in the .appellate court contains a copy of this notice, copies of the appellant’s…

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.