Legal Opinion

Birkhofer v. Krumm

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 22, 1937No. Civ. 2133PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtJennings, J.

This is a motion by appellant for diminution of the record for the purpose of supplying an alleged omission in the reporter’s transcript which occurs in the answer of a witness to the following question: “What was the value of the property described in the deed of trust, a copy of which is attached to the complaint in the pending action, on the 7th of October, 1935?” The reporter’s transcript shows that the answer to the interrogation was “About $1500.00.” This proceeding seeks to correct the answer so that it will read “About $1500.00 an acre.”

The motion is supported by an affidavit of…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Webster v. WebsterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
  2. McMahon v. HamiltonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
  3. Dugan v. ForsterCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
  4. Keck v. KeckCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
  5. Barnett v. MarsiliCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Birkhofer v. KrummCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1938

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API