
    [Civ. No. 2862.
    First Appellate District, Division One.—
    May 10, 1919.]
    THOMAS OCKENDEN, Respondent, v. HENRY C. CUTTING, Appellant.
    
       Appeal—Alternative Method—Insufficient Record in Brief.— Where an appeal is taken by the alternative method and the Jmain question discussed in appellant’s opening brief is the sufficiency of the pleadings and evidence to support the judgment appealed from, but the appellant fails to print in such brief, or in a supplement thereto, any part of the pleadings or any excerpts from the evidence directing the court to the portions thereof upon which the appellant relies, the judgment will be affirmed.
    APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. John J. Van Nostrand, Judge. Affirmed.
    The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
    Douglas A. Nye for Appellant.
    Arnold W. Liechti for Respondent.
   RICHARDS, J.

This matter is presented upon an order to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for failure on the part of the appellant to comply with the requirements of section 953c of the Code of Civil Procedure. -The appeal was by the alternative method, and a typewritten transcript of 119 pages has been filed. The main question discussed in appellant’s opening brief is the sufficiency of the pleadings and evidence to support; the judgment appealed from. No supplement is appended to appellant’s brief embracing any portion of the record, nor is there printed in said brief any part of the pleadings or any excerpts from the evidence (except one brief half-page), directing the court to the portions thereof upon which the appellant relies. The existence of that portion of section 953c of the Code of Civil Procedure which requires that these things be done has been utterly ignored in this case. This court and the supreme court have repeatedly pointed out the necessity of a compliance with the requirements of this section of the code before any duty devolves upon the court to so far examine into the merits of the appeal as to search through the record for that which should have been embraced in the brief. (Moore v. Guajardo, 37 Cal. App. 342, [174 Pac. 92]; Scott v. Hollywood Park Co., 176 Cal. 680, [169 Pac. 379]; Chandlee v. McCalla, 179 Cal. 678, [178 Pac. 709].)

The attention of the appellant having been directed by the, brief of respondent to his failure to comply with the statute in this regard, and no effort at the correction of the defect having been attempted, nor any response made to the order to show cause, it is, therefore, ordered that the judgment herein shall be, and the same is hereby, affirmed.

¡Waste, P. J., and Kerrigan, J., concurred.  