
    [L. A. No. 4622.
    Department One.
    July 23, 1918.]
    FRANKFORT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY (a Corporation), et al., Respondents, v. A. CRAMER, Appellant.
    Appeal—Alternative Method—Typewritten Transcript—Insufficient Record—Affirmance of Judgment.—Where, on an appeal from a judgment taken by the alternative method, the appellant relies solely upon his claim of the insufficiency of the evidence to justify the findings and judgment, yet, although the typewritten transcript embraces 120 pages, the appellant’s opening brief contains no supplement, as required by the rule, and does not by quotation, reference, or otherwise direct the court to the portions of the record upon which he relies to sustain his point, the judgment will be affirmed.
    APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County. C. N. Andrews, Judge.
    The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
    A. T. Roark, for Appellant.
    Clarence Harden, for Respondents.
   RICHARDS, J., pro tem.

The record upon this appeal justifies a strict application of the rule laid down in section 953c of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appeal is by the alternative method. The typewritten transcript embraces 120 pages. The appellant relies solely upon the point that the evidence is insufficient to justify the findings and judgment of the court. His opening brief contains no supplement such as is required by the rule, nor does it disclose any attempt at compliance with the rule by quotation, reference, or otherwise, directing the court to the portions of the record upon which appellant relies to sustain his point. Although appellant’s attention was expressly directed by respondent’s brief to his utter disregard of the rule, no effort has been made to correct the deficiencies in his brief, either by way of a reply brief or by application for relief to the court. Instead appellant has filed a stipulation submitting the cause upon the briefs on file. Upon the authority of Marcucci v.

Vowinckel, 164 Cal. 693, [130 Pac. 430], O'Rourke v. Skellenger, 169 Cal. 270, [146 Pac. 633], and Williams v. Hawkins, 20 Cal. App. 161, [128 Pac. 754], the judgment is affirmed.

Shaw, J., and Sloss, J., concurred.  