TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Hershey v. Bristol

MIRA HERSHEY, Respondent v. EMMA R. BRISTOL Et Al., Defendants. JENNIE A. BRISTOL, Appellant

Hershey v. Bristol, 121 P. 871 (Cal. 1912)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 29, 1912
Docket
No. L.A. No. 2654.
Judges
Henshaw
Citations
121 P. 871162 Cal. 1101912 Cal. LEXIS 501
Headnotes
Appeal—Order Befusing to Becall writ of Assistance—Lack of Bill of Exceptions—Unauthenticated Becord on Appeal.—An order denying a motion to vacate an order for a writ of assistance and to recall the writ will not be reviewed on appeal and will be affirmed, if the transcript contains no bill of exceptions, and the papers contained in it are unauthentieated as the papers and evidence used or taken on the hearing of the motion in any other way as required by rule XXIX of the supreme court.
Summary
'APPEAL from an order of the Superior. Court of Los Angeles County refusing a motion to vacate an order for the issuance of a Writ of Assistance and to recall the writ. Charles Monroe, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion óf the court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Henshaw

HENSHAW, J.

This is an appeal from an order denying appellant’s motion to vacate an order for the issuance of a writ of assistance and to recall the writ. The transcript contains no bill of exceptions, nor are the papers contained in it authenticated as “the papers and evidence used or taken on the hearing of the motion” in any other way as required by rule XXIX, [ 144 Cal. lii , 119 Pac. xiv ], of this court. “Unautlienticated papers in a transcript in which there is no bill of exceptions constitute no part of a record which can be considered on appeal.”

(Nash v. Harris, 57 Cal.

242; Herrlich v. McDonald, 80 Cal. 472 , [ 22 Pac. 299 ] ;

Melde v. Reynolds, 120 Cal. 237 , [ 52 Pac. 491 ];

Skinner v. Horn, 144 Cal. 278 , [ 77 Pac. 904 ].) The result is that appellant presents no record upon which the order appealed from can be reviewed, and respondent’s motion to affirm the order must be and therefore is granted.

(Skinner v. Horn, 144 Cal. 278 , [ 77 Pac. 904 ];

Skinner v. Horn, 146 Cal. 62 , [ 79 Pac. 597 ];

Power v. Fairbanks, 146 Cal. 611 , [ 80 Pac. 1075 ];

Wyckoff v. Pajaro R. C. Co., 146 Cal. 681 , [ 81 Pac. 17 ].)

Melvin, J., and Lorigan, J., concurred.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1912: 21920: 119122026peak 1912 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Collins v. Ramish188 P. 550 (Cal. 1920)
  2. Knox v. Schrag122 P. 969 (Cal. Ct. App. 1912)
  3. Credit Clearance Bureau v. Weary & Alford Co.123 P. 548 (Cal. Ct. App. 1912)

Most recent

  1. Collins v. Ramish188 P. 550 (Cal. 1920)
  2. Credit Clearance Bureau v. Weary & Alford Co.123 P. 548 (Cal. Ct. App. 1912)
  3. Knox v. Schrag122 P. 969 (Cal. Ct. App. 1912)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 7

DepthCaseCited by
Skinner v. Horn, 77 P. 904 (Cal. 1904) 21
Herrlich v. McDonald, 22 P. 299 (Cal. 1889) 37
Melde v. Reynolds, 52 P. 491 (Cal. 1898) 33
Power v. Fairbanks, 80 P. 1075 (Cal. 1905) 25
Skinner v. Horn, 79 P. 597 (Cal. 1905) 5
Wyckoff v. Pajaro Valley Consol. R.R., 81 P. 17 (Cal. 1905) 5
Nash v. Harris, 57 Cal. 242 (1881) 26

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list