Case ID: cal-app_26/html/0472-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "JAMES, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[Civ. No. 1579.
    Second Appellate District.
    February 4, 1915.]
    G. W. YOUNT, Respondent, v. ARAKALIAN BROS. COMPANY (a Corporation), Appellant.
    Appeals — Judgment — Insufficient Record. — Upon an appeal taken from a judgment in an action for services, the evidence cannot be reviewed, where the purported statement of the ease containing such evidence is not shown by the record to have ever been settled by the trial judge, or to have attached thereto any stipulation authorizing the taking of notice of the contents of the statement by the appellate court.
    APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Imperial County. Franklin J. Cole, Judge.
    The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
    Dan V. Noland, for Appellant.
    Frank Birkhauser, for Respondent.
   JAMES, J.

Respondent brought this action to recover for services performed under a written contract alleged to have been executed by defendant. He had judgment in the lower court, from which this appeal has been prosecuted by the defendant. In addition to the usual papers constituting the judgment-roll, there is printed what purports to be a statement of the case presenting the evidence heard at the trial. It does not appear that this statement was ever settled by the trial judge; nor is there any stipulation attached thereto by reason of which this court would be authorized to take notice of the contents of that statement. It would seem from a note printed on the concluding page of the transcript that the motion for settlement of the statement was by the trial court denied. There is, therefore, nothing presented from which a review of the evidence can be made. Examining the judgment-roll, we find no error which willl warrant a reversal being ordered. The findings of the court seem to support the judgment and to have been within the issues made by the pleadings.

The judgment is, therefore, affirmed.

Conrey, P. J., and Shaw, J., concurred.