Case Name: E. H. JONES, Respondent, v. AMERICAN POTASH COMPANY (a Corporation), Appellant
Court: District Court of Appeal of the State of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1917-10-25
Citations: 35 Cal. App. 128
Docket Number: Civ. No. 1910
Parties: E. H. JONES, Respondent, v. AMERICAN POTASH COMPANY (a Corporation), Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Appellate Reports
Volume: 35
Pages: 128–129

Head Matter:
[Civ. No. 1910.
Second Appellate District.
October 25, 1917.]
E. H. JONES, Respondent, v. AMERICAN POTASH COMPANY (a Corporation), Appellant.
Appeal—Alternative Method—Brief—Insufficient Record.—On an appeal taken from a judgment under the alternative method, the judgment must be affirmed where the appellant fails to print in its brief sufficient of the record to properly present the points relied upon for reversal.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Fred H. Taft, Judge.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. .
Robert L. Hubbard, for Appellant.
Horace S. Wilson, for Respondent.

Opinion:
THE COURT.
This appeal is taken under the alternative method from a judgment entered against defendant. A number of points appear to be made in the brief of appellant, all of which refer to the evidence presented to the trial court. It is urged, among other things, that the findings and judgment are not supported by the evidence; that the court erred in excluding certain evidence, etc. No part of the record is printed in the brief of appellant, except three paragraphs from the findings of the court. Appellant has utterly failed to print in his brief any other matters to which he desires to call the attention of the court. Necessarily, in order to properly consider the points made as to the insufficiency of the evidence and as to the alleged errors of the court in excluding offered testimony, we should have before us the testimony received and offered. The result is that the only order that can properly be made by this court is one in affirmance of the judgment for want of any showing why the same should be reversed. (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, [163 Pac. 357]; Pasadena Realty Co. v. Clune, 34 Cal. App. 33, [166 Pac. 1025] ; McKinnell v. Hansen, 34 Cal. App. 76, [167 Pac. 887]; California Sav. etc. Bank, v. Canne, 34 Cal. App. 768, [169 Pac. 395].)
The judgment is affirmed.