Case ID: cal_66/html/0034-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "The Court.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[No. 8,266.
    Department Two.
    October 21, 1884.
    ELIZABETH PELTRET, Appellant, v. JOHN FRANK et al., Respondents.
    Appeal—Practice—Record.—On appeal from an order made after final judgment, no papers other than the judgment roll will be considered, unless they are identified as having been used on the hearing of the motion.
    Appeal from certain orders of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco made after final judgment.
    The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court.
    
      E. J. Linforth, for Appellant.
    
      Robinson, Olney & Byrne, and F. J. Castlehun, for Respondents.
   The Court.

Appeal from orders made after judgment. In addition to a copy of the judgment roll, the transcript contains what purports to be copies of affidavits, and of the official reporter’s notes of the oral evidence of two witnesses. These are not incorporated in a bill of exceptions, nor are they identified by a certificate of the judge, or otherwise, as having been used or considered on the hearing of any motion in the case. Under the circumstances, we cannot consider any thing except the judgment-roll, and as that discloses no ground for a reversal of the orders appealed from, they are affirmed. (Baker v. Snyder, 58 Cal. 617; Angell v. Delmas, 60 Cal. 254; Walsh v. Hutchings, 60 Cal. 228, and White v. Longmire, 63'Cal. 232.)

Orders affirmed.