Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

35 Cal. App. 796

Beckett v. Stuart

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 9, 1918

California Court of Appeal · decided 1918-01-09

<p>APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. John W. Shenk, Judge.</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

Relies on 34 Cal. App. 76 - McKinnell v. Hansen

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1918-01-09

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently October 1939

6 state decisions

30191819201930decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

WORKS, J., pro tem.

¶1Motion to dismiss appeal. This is an appeal from the judgment alone under what is known as the alternative method. There is before us no record showing the proceedings at the trial, but there is on file a typewritten copy of the judgment-roll, certified by the clerk of the trial court. Respondent moves to dismiss the appeal because of the absence of such record of the trial as is designated, under section 953a of the Code of Civil Procedure, to take the place of a bill of exceptions; but, under the opinion of the supreme court denying an application for rehearing in McKinnell v. Hansen, 34 Cal. App. 76, [167 Pac. 887]', the typewritten copy of the judgment-roll presents such a record- as entitles the appeal to be heard on the merits. The record of the proceedings at the trial is not necessary as a predicate to the right to such hearing.

¶2The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.

¶3Conrey, P. J., and James, J., concurred.

/35/calapp/796 · .json · Public domain