Muller v. Robinson
| Citation | 14 Cal.Rptr. 693,193 Cal.App.2d 835 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Decision Date | 19 July 1961 |
| Parties | Lelah MULLER, also known as Lelah Reber, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Otis ROBINSON et al., Defendants, and William Muller, Petitioner in Intervention and Appellant. Civ. 19756. |
William Muller, Redwood City, appellant, in pro. per.
Charles Reagh, San Francisco, for respondent.
Appellant appeals from an order denying his motion made on January 5, 1960 to intervene in Lelah Muller v. Otis Robinson, et al. This action was filed on March 5, 1958 and is to quiet title to a piece of real property. This is appellant's second attempt to intervene in this case. Section 1008 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits a subsequent application for the same order upon an alleged different statement of facts.
In his notice of motion for leave to intervene appellant incorporated exhibits as follows: 'A'--agreement between appellant and Edward Danner, Jr. relating to investigative service; 'B'--deposition of Edward Danner, Jr.; 'C'--appellant's petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court; and 'D'--appellant's petition for a rehearing filed in the District Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, State of California, on November 2, 1959. Purporting to act under Rule 10(b) of the Rules on Appeal appellant had the clerk of the trial court transmit to this court these 'exhibits.' These so-called exhibits were not received by this court because they were not exhibits admitted in evidence or rejected by the trial court. The pertinent part of Rule 10(b) reads as follows: 'When the parties shall have been notified by the clerk of the reviewing court that an appeal has been set for hearing, each party shall file with the clerk of the superior court a notice specifying such of the original exhibits or affidavits designated by any party for inclusion in the record, as he desires transmitted to the reviewing court * * *.' (Emphasis added.) The documents in question were filed in the trial court as a part of appellant's motion for leave to intervene in this action. They were not exhibits admitted in evidence or rejected by the trial court. If such documents were to become a part of the record on appeal it would have been necessary for appellant to designate them, as a part of the clerk's transcript on appeal.
Appellant now files a motion to augment the record by including therein 'B,' 'C,' and 'D' under Rule 12, subdivisions 'B' 'C,' and 'D' under Rule 12, subdivisions (a) and (b) of the Rules on Appeal. Rule 12(b) has no application. Rule 12(a) reads as follows: 'On suggestion of any party or on its own motion, the reviewing court, on such terms as it deems proper, may order that the original or a copy of a paper, record or exhibit offered at or used on the trial or hearing below and on file in or lodged with the superior court be transmitted to it, or that portions of the oral proceedings be transcribed, certified and transmitted to it, or that an agreed or settled statement of portions of the oral proceedings be prepared and transmitted to it; and when so transmitted they shall be deemed a part of the record on appeal.' This court is of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served by transmitting these records to this court; however, the way to have brought them before this court was to include them in the clerk's transcript. The motion to augment is denied.
From the record before us it appears that all of appellant's points, excepting one, were presented to this court and passed upon in Muller v. Muller, 141 Cal.App.2d 722, 297 P.2d 789, or in Muller v. Robinson, 174 Cal.App.2d 511, 345 P.2d 25. The one new point is: 'That Intervener William Muller has and is subject to a secondary or derivative liability and would suffer monetary and realty loss by an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sutter Health Uninsured Pricing Cases
...110, 120 ["fundamental prerequisite" is the filing of a complaint in intervention which is then served on parties]; Muller v. Robinson (1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 835, 837-838 [where "appellant did not file his proposed complaint in intervention" trial court was justified in denying the motion to......
-
People v. Rodriguez
...in trial court may not be considered, for any purpose, on appeal]; People v. Brooks (1980) 26 Cal.3d 471, 484 [same]; Muller v. Robinson (1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 835, 836-837 [same].)III. Heat of Passion Voluntary Manslaughter Instruction Towards the end of trial, the trial court discussed jur......
-
People v. Ryerson
...may be rendered therein.' (Faus v. Pacific Electric Railway Company, 134 Cal.App.2d 352, 356, 285 P.2d 1017, 1019; Muller v. Robinson, 193 Cal.App.2d 835, 14 Cal.Rptr. 693; People ex rel. State Lands Commission v. City of Long Beach, 183 Cal.App.2d 271, 6 Cal.Rptr. 658.) While the interest ......
-
Olson v. Hopkins
...524, 290 P.2d 939); to one whose secondary or derivative liability would depend upon the outcome of the litigation (Muller v. Robinson, 193 Cal.App.2d 835, 14 Cal.Rptr. 693); to a potential (but not yet actual) subrogee (Hausmann v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, 213 Cal.App.2d 611, 29 Cal.Rpt......