Case ID: cal_41/html/0632-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Court, Wallace, J.:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[No. 2,204.]
    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. HORACE HAWES.
    Stipulation in Oourt Below, when no part of Appeal Record.— "Where a transcript on appeal contained neither bill of exceptions nor statement, and the only points raised depended upon a stipulation embodied in it, to the effect that for the purpose of a trial in the Oourt below and an appeal certain isolated facts (not, however, constituting the case to be determined) were agreed on. Held, that such stipulation was not an exception, nor a statement on appeal, nor a part of the judgment roll, and that therefore neither it nor the points depending upon it could be considered by the appellate Court.
    Appeal from the District Court of the Twelfth Judicial District, San Mateo County.
    This was an action against the defendant, Hawes, and certain real estate, known as the “Redwood Farm,” to recover taxes, amounting to seven hundred and sixty-eight dollars and eighty-seven cents, levied for the fiscal year 1868-9. The transcript on appeal, besides the pleadings, findings, and judgment, contained, under the head “ Statement,” a stipulation, dated June 14th, 1869, whereby it was agreed to submit the cause to the District Court upon the evidence and statement of facts therein given, and that upon them and the pleadings the Court should determine all questions of law and fact, and proceed to render final judgment, subject to appeal; and that, in case of appeal by either party, the same might be taken directly, without any previous application for new trial; and that this statement should stand for the statement on appeal. The evidence and facts set forth in the stipulation related to the time and manner of making up the assessment roll and levy of road tax in San Mateo County in 1868. There was nothing in the record purporting to be an objection or exception, nor anything purporting to be a statement, except the foregoing stipulation. There was a judgment on September 30th, 1869, for plaintiff, as demanded in the complaint, and defendant appealed.
    
      Horace Hawes, for Appellant.
    
      George W. Fox, District Attorney of San Mateo County, for Respondent.
   By the Court, Wallace, J.:

The appeal is from the judgment, and rests upon the judgment roll, being in this case the pleadings, findings, and judgment—no bill of exceptions or statement appearing in the record. A stipulation is found embodied in the transcript, from which it would appear that for the purpose of a trial in the Court below and an appeal to this Court, if one should be thereafter taken, certain isolated facts were agreed upon" (not, however, mating up the case to be determined), and also agreeing that certain evidence might be offered on the trial, subject to objection, etc. This stipulation is not, by statute, part of the judgment roll. It is not an exception under section one hundred and eighty-eight, nor a statement on appeal under section three hundred and thirty-eight, and we cannot therefore consider it or the points of the appellant, depending, as they do, wholly upon it.

The judgment is therefore affirmed, as of the 10th day of January, 1871.

Mr. Justice Crockett did not participate in the foregoing decision.