History
  • No items yet
midpage
Schurman v. Look
190 Cal. 113
| Cal. | 1922
|
Check Treatment

The motion of the respondent, Halleck Hart Look, to require the appellant to print additional evidence not in his brief is denied.

[1] The code provides that "in filing briefs on said appeal the parties must, however, print in their briefs, or in a supplement appended thereto, such portions of the record as they desire to call to the attention of the court." (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 953c.) The appellant, it must be presumed, has done so. [2] The respondent may print in his brief such portions of the record as he relies on. It is proper to add that in doing so it is not necessary for him to print every part of the record. It is sufficient for him to state the substance of the evidence. For illustration, where the evidence is produced by question and answer, he may give only the answer where it sufficiently explains the question to which it was presented. In this way the respondent *Page 114 can very much abridge the evidence he desires to have presented. Other methods of abbreviation will doubtless occur to the respondent.

Shaw, C. J., Wilbur, J., Lennon, J., Sloane, J., and Lawlor, J., concurred.

Case Details

Case Name: Schurman v. Look
Court Name: California Supreme Court
Date Published: Nov 20, 1922
Citation: 190 Cal. 113
Docket Number: Sac. No. 3392.
Court Abbreviation: Cal.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.