Legal Opinion

Stout v. Farwell

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 5, 1932No. Docket No. 8067PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSpence, J.

Defendants appeal solely upon the judgment-roll from a judgment decreeing foreclosure of a mechanic’s lien in the sum of $248.24.

Appellants’ brief fails to comply with rule VIII of the Rules for the Supreme Court and District Courts of Appeal. It contains but two headings, “The Complaint”, and "The Findings”, neither of which heading shows "the nature of the question to be presented”. We again wish to stress the importance of compliance with said rule and to point out that under its provisions an appeal may be dismissed for failure to comply therewith. (Richmond Terminal Corp. v. Parr…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Stone v. SerimianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1926
  2. Richmond Terminal Corp. v. Parr Terminal Co.California Court of Appeal · 1931
  3. Hawkins v. DoolittleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Milano v. BulleriCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
  2. Halliburton Co. v. ClaypooleWyoming Supreme Court · 1994

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

Powered by the Exa API