Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

162 Cal. 110

121 P 871

Hershey v. Bristol

California Supreme Court

Decided January 29, 1912

California Supreme Court · decided 1912-01-29

'APPEAL from an order of the Superior. Court of Los Angeles County refusing a motion to vacate an order for the issuance of a Writ of Assistance and to recall the writ. Charles Monroe, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion óf the court.

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently March 1920

3 state decisions

Relies on Herrlich v. McDonald · Melde v. Reynolds · Power v. Fairbanks

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1912-01-29

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

HENSHAW, J.

¶1 This is an appeal from an order denying appellant’s motion to vacate an order for the issuance of a writ of assistance and to recall the writ. The transcript contains no bill of exceptions, nor are the papers contained in it authenticated as “the papers and evidence used or taken on the hearing of the motion” in any other way as required by rule XXIX, [144 Cal. lii, 119 Pac. xiv], of this court. “Unautlienticated papers in a transcript in which there is no bill of exceptions constitute no part of a record which can be considered on appeal.” (Nash v. Harris, 57 Cal. 242; Herrlich v. McDonald, 80 Cal. 472, [22 Pac. 299] ; Melde v. Reynolds, 120 Cal. 237, [52 Pac. 491]; Skinner v. Horn, 144 Cal. 278, [77 Pac. 904].) The result is that appellant presents no record upon which the order appealed from can be reviewed, and respondent’s motion to affirm the order must be and therefore is granted. (Skinner v. Horn, 144 Cal. 278, [77 Pac. 904]; Skinner v. Horn, 146 Cal. 62, [79 Pac. 597]; Power v. Fairbanks, 146 Cal. 611, [80 Pac. 1075]; Wyckoff v. Pajaro R. C. Co., 146 Cal. 681, [81 Pac. 17].)

¶2 Melvin, J., and Lorigan, J., concurred.

/162/cal/110 · .json · Public domain