Marshallan Mfg. Co. of Cal. v. Brack
| Decision Date | 14 July 1959 |
| Citation | 172 Cal.App.2d 22,342 P.2d 26 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | MARSHALLAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, INC., Appellant, v. Hans BRACK, doing business as Brack Manufacturing Company, Respondent. Civ. 23941. |
Hill & Attias, Beverly Hills, for appellant.
William K. Gumpert, Los Angeles, for respondent.
Respondent made a motion to dismiss the appeal in this cause. The motion was made upon the ground that appellant did not comply with Rule 4(b) of the Rules on Appeal.
Respondent asserts and the record indicates that he is correct, that appellant requested the preparation of the Reporter's Transcript of the testimony of only some of the witnesses and not of all of the witnesses, and that appellant did not state 'the points to be raised by him on the appeal.'
Rule 4(b) of Rules on Appeal provides insofar as we are here concerned, as follows:
'* * * If the appellant, in his notice to the clerk, states the points to be raised by him on the appeal, he may designate the portions of the oral proceedings to be transcribed, or direct the omission of any portions which he deems unnecessary, and in such event shall be precluded from presenting any grounds for reversal not embraced within the points stated by him, unless the reviewing court on motion shall permit the appellant to present additional errors or grounds of appeal on such terms as it may prescribe.'
Appellant's counsel admits his failure to state the points to be raised on the appeal and with frankness assumes the entire blame for such omission without reference to any secretarial deficiencies, weighty matters in his office, or a heavy trial schedule. He asks leave to amend so as to designate the points to be raised on the appeal.
Rules on Appeal are essentially to expedite and make for orderly conduct of the work of Appellate Courts and such rules should be observed, however, it is also true that the policy of our law is to favor hearings on appeal upon their merits when such can be done without violence to the rules. Lundy v. Lakin, 89 Cal.App.2d 849, 852, 202 P.2d 369; Jarkieh v. Badagliacco, 68 Cal.App.2d 426, 431, 156 P.2d 969.
We are of the opinion that no substantial harm can come from permitting the appellant to amend as heretofore indicated. The respondent, of course, should be permitted to have before this Court any or all of the portions of the oral proceedings not designated in the appellant's notices...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Slawinski v. Mocettini
...the right of appeal should be granted. (Koehn v. State Board of Equalization, 50 Cal.2d 432, 435, 326 P.2d 502; Marshallan Mfg. Co. v. Brack, 172 Cal.App.2d 22, 23, 342 P.2d 26; Brown v. Guy, 167 Cal.App.2d 211, 215, 334 P.2d 67; Haskins v. Crumley, 152 Cal.App.2d 64, 65-66, 312 P.2d 276; H......
-
Nicola v. Residence Mut. Ins. Co.
...appeal. (Haskins v. Crumley (1957) 152 Cal.App.2d 64, 65-66 [motion to strike opening brief and dismiss appeal]; Marshallan Mfg. Co. v. Brack (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 22, 23-24 [motion to dismiss appeal].) In allowing the appellant time to correct its omission, the Haskins and Marshallan court......
-
People v. Dalton, Cr. 3537
...341 P.2d 793 ... 172 Cal.App.2d 15 ... PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, ... ...
-
Hooper v. Byron Jackson Pumps, Inc.
...defendants did not, as the respondents did in Haskins v. Crumley, 1957, 152 Cal.App.2d 64, 312 P.2d 276 and in Marshallan Mfg. Co. v. Brack, 1959, 172 Cal.App.2d 22, 342 P.2d 26, move for a dismissal of the appeal. The appellate court, in those cases, indicated that a dismissal would be ord......