Siebe v. Joshua Hendy Machine Works
California Supreme Court
• Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Hayne, C.
— This was an action upon a promissory-note. The trial court gave judgment for the plaintiffs,, and the defendant appeals.-
*391We do not think that, upon the record before us, the appellate court can consider the question whether the evidence supports the findings of fact. The record provided by statute for bringing up the evidence is a bill of exceptions, or statement, to be served upon the successful party, and settled and certified by the judge. There is no bill of exceptions, or statement, in the transcript. It is plain, therefore, that, unless there is some equivalent or substitute…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Wetherbee v. CarrollCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
- Castle v. Belfast Foundry Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1881
3Cited by14 opinions
- Mayger v. St. Louis Mining & Milling Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1923
- Stevens v. Selma Fruit Co., Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1912
- Williams v. ReedCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
- Dover Copper Mining Co. v. DoengesArizona Supreme Court · 1932
- Trent v. SherlockMontana Supreme Court · 1900
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.