Legal Opinion

California Savings & Commercial Bank v. Canne

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 9, 1917No. Civ. No. 1878PublishedCited by 11 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the Court

THE COURT.

In this ease we cannot find sufficient in the printed extracts from the record, as contained in appellant's brief, to warrant our ordering other than an affirmance of the judgment. The judgment-roll is not printed in the brief, which leaves us without information presented in the way required by the law, as to the issues. Without this inf ormation, we cannot determine questions of the relevancy of the testimony offered, refused, or received, or the matter of the correctness of instructions given or withheld from the jury. While the alternative method of appeal permits parties to…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Marcucci v. VowinckelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
  2. Burke v. MazeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1909
  3. Miller v. OliverCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
  4. McKinnell v. HansenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1917
  5. Miller v. OliverCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Barker Brothers v. JoosCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1918
  2. Hammond v. HazardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
  3. Reed v. ReedCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
  4. Jones v. American Potash Co.California Court of Appeal · 1917
  5. Huffaker v. McVeyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1917

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

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

Powered by the Exa API