Opinion
Rehearing Denied June 22, 1936.
Hearing Granted by Supreme Court July 23, 1936.
Appeal from Superior Court, San Luis Obispo County; T. A. Norton, Judge.
Action by Jane V. Reinert against the California Almond Growers Exchange and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals.
Appeal dismissed.
COUNSEL
Webster & Lyon and Ray B. Lyon, all of Paso Robles, Griffith & Thornburgh and William G. Griffith, all of Santa Barbara, and Flint & MacKay, William A. Bowen, and Edward L. Compton, all of Los Angeles, for appellant.
Warren Olney, Jr., F. F. Thomas, Jr., F. W. Mielke, and McCutchen, Olney, Mannon & Greene, all of San Francisco, for respondents.
OPINION
McCOMB, Justice pro tem.
This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of respondent after trial before the court without a jury.
Appellant has failed in his opening brief to set forth on the first page thereof without any other matter appearing thereon the questions involved. Rule VIII, § 2, p. 10, Rules of the Supreme Court and District Courts of Appeal of the State of California.
In Adams v. Standard Accident Insurance Co., 124 Cal.App. 393, 394, 12 P.2d 464, Mr. Justice Conrey, then Presiding Justice of the District Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division 1, in commenting upon the provisions of rule VIII, supra, accurately states the requirement thus: "Such assignment of error should take the form of one or more stated propositions, which, if sustained, would lend reasonable support to appellant’s demand for reversal of the judgment."
This court has repeatedly held that it will not assume the task of searching the record for the purpose of discovering errors not pointed out by counsel. It is the duty of counsel to comply with rule VIII, supra, in its entirety. Battson v. Kirkpatrick (Cal.App.) 53 P.2d 762; Ferslew v. Andersen (Cal.App.) 53 P.2d 768; Bernstein v. Congregation Anshi Sfart (Cal.App.) 57 P.2d 954.
This rule is not a mere technical requirement, but is prescribed for the purpose of facilitating disposition of cases upon appeal and directing the court’s attention to the specific errors of law alleged to have been committed by the trial court.
For the foregoing reason, the appeal is dismissed.
We concur: CRAIL, P. J.; WOOD, J.