gno.law

Credit Clearance Bureau v. Weary & Alford Co.

California Court of Appeal · Civ. No. 949. · 1912-03-07 · Published · 123 P. 548 · 18 Cal. App. 467 · 1912 Cal. App. LEXIS 298

CREDIT CLEARANCE BUREAU, a Corporation, Appellant, v. WEARY & ALFORD COMPANY, a Corporation, Respondent

Proceeding
appeal from an order
Trial court
Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco vacating and setting aside a judgment by default
Trial judge
Thomas F. Graham
Outcome
affirmed — The order is affirmed.
Area
civil
Panel
Frank H. Kerrigan (author)

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion — Kerrigan

KERRIGAN, J.

This is an appeal from an order vacating and setting aside a default judgment.

The defendant objects to the hearing of the appeal on the ground that no properly authenticated record has been filed in this court.

The clerk of the trial court prepared what purports to be a transcript for the use of this court upon the appeal, certifying that it contained a full, true and correct copy of the judgment-roll, notice of motion to set aside the default, and affidavits used on the hearing. It has been held, however, in *468 several cases that this authentication is .insufficient. Here the appeal is from an order heard and determined upon affidavits. To perfect such an appeal it was necessary for the appellant to adopt either the method prescribed by sections 953a, 953b and 953c of the Code of Civil Procedure or that prescribed by rule XXIX of the supreme court. (144 Cal. lii, [78 Pac. xii].) If either of such methods had been pursued, the record would have been examined and authenticated by the trial judge—the person who knew what papers were used upon the hearing of the motion. As was said in Walsh v. Hutchings, 60 Cal. 228, “It is not for the clerk to determine what papers or evidence the court acted upon. ’ ’

The plaintiff having availed itself of neither method to perfect its appeal, it results that the appeal cannot be considered and that we must affirm the order.

(Knox v. Schrag, ante, p. 220, [122 Pac. 969];

Harrison v. Cousins, 16 Cal. App. 515, [117 Pac. 564];

Hibernia Sav. & Loan Society v. Doran, 161 Cal. 118, [118 Pac. 526];

Hershey v. Bristol, 162 Cal. 110, [121 Pac. 371].)

The order is affirmed.

Hall, J., and Lennon, P. J., concurred.

Cites, in this corpus

Cited by