If the agreed statement covered the issue, there would be no problem. But that statement is silent as to both actual notice and recording. Nor is this the normal case in which one party seeks to recover, and must fail unless it establishes its right to recovery. Rather, a fund inadequate to pay all claims has been deposited in court. It must be disposed of, but only to a claimant who establishes his own affirmative right. Nor does reference to the burden of proof of specific issues solve the problem. On the face of the code section, appellant seems required to show that the wage claimants had no actual notice, in order to bring itself within the class entitled to assert invalidity of the assignments and, once this is done, respondents would seem required to bring themselves within the exception by showing that notice was recorded. [3] Whether a court may refuse to accept submission of a case upon an inadequate agreed statement has not been decided in California. In other jurisdictions, the right and duty of such rejection has been recognized (McCarthy v. Employers' Fire Ins. Co., 97 Mont. 540 [37 P.2d 579, 97 A.L.R. 292]; Feist v. Fifth Avenue Bank, 280 N.Y. 189 [20 N.E.2d 388]; Graham v. Bayne, 59 U.S. (18 How.) 60 [15 L. Ed. 265]; 3 Am.Jur.2d 740). The rule seems eminently reasonable. The parties should be required to amplify the record by further stipulation or by evidence. Judgment reversed. Salsman, J., and Devine, J., concurred. holdings of the court