Kimball v. Semple
Citations
- 31 Cal. 657
Syllabus
<p>Unaethenticated Statement.— An unauthenticated document, purporting to he a statement on motion for new trial, will he stricken from the transcript on appeal.</p> <p>Statement in Transcript.—If a statement in the transcript is not authenticated, and the appellant afterwards brings up a certified hut defective statement, he will not be allowed to use the second statement in connection with portions of the first, as the statement in the case.</p> <p>Transcript on Appeal.—It is the duty of the appellant to furnish the Supreme Court with a complete, clean, properly arranged, and properly authenticated transcript.</p> <p>Skeleton Statements.—A skeleton statement, containing the words [here insert deed, etc.] ” describing it, omitting, without consent of the parties, the documents thus directed to be inserted in the statement as settled, will be stricken from the transcript on appeal.</p> <p>Idem.—The proper practice is to engross the statement as settled, including so much of the deeds and other documentary evidence pertaining to the case as is directed to be inserted, and have the authentication of the Judge or attorneys indorsed on the engrossed statement.</p> <p>Idem.—An appellant cannot leave out of the transcript any portion of the statement as settled, unless on stipulation of the other party.</p> <p>Engrossing Statement.—A statement ought always to be engrossed where any amendments are allowed, or whore documentary evidence is directed to be inserted, especially when such documents constitute no part of the files or records of the Court.</p> <p>Filling out Skeleton Statement.—Where documentary evidence is referred to in the statement on motion for a new trial, and directed to bo inserted, the appellant cannot, without the assent of the other party, insert copies of the same in the transcript on appeal, unless the statement has been engrossed as settled, and afterwards authenticated, or unless the originals are on the files of the Court, or constitute a part of
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- declaratory judgment did not lie where the rights of the parties had already accrued and where the petitioner alleged with certainty and definiteness that it owned the land being allegedly appropriated by the highway department
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Sawyer
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.