Adams v. Andross

California Supreme Court

Adams v. Andross

24 P. 842, 85 Cal. 609, 1890 Cal. LEXIS 958

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 12, 1890

DocketNo. 12620

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 24 P. 842 (Adams v. Andross) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adams v. Andross, 24 P. 842, 85 Cal. 609, 1890 Cal. LEXIS 958 (Cal. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Works, J.

This is an appeal from an order denying an injunction. Neither of the parties has taken sufficient interest in the case to file a brief. It is apparent that the motion for the injunction was supported by the plaintiff and resisted by the defendant on affidavits. A bill of exceptions was filed, which simply recites that certain affidavits, naming them, were read, but the affidavits are not set out. This, of course, furnishes nothing for this court to act upon. Certain affidavits appear in the transcript, and a certificate of the judge that the affidavits of certain persons and other documents were used at the hearing has been filed, but the affidavits are only identified by the names of the parties who made them, and certain indorsements. It has been held that such an authentication of papers is insufficient. (Herrlich [610]*610v. McDonald, 80 Cal. 472; Somers v. Somers, 81 Cal. 608.)

Order affirmed.

Fox, J., concurred.

Paterson, J.

I have considered the affidavits, and think the order of the court is correct.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Works, J.

This is an appeal from an order denying an injunction. Neither of the parties has taken sufficient interest in the case to file a brief. It is apparent that the motion for the injunction was supported by the plaintiff and resisted by the defendant on affidavits. A bill of exceptions was filed, which simply recites that certain affidavits, naming them, were read, but the affidavits are not set out. This, of course, furnishes nothing for this court to act upon. Certain affidavits appear in the transcript, and a certificate of the judge that the affidavits of certain persons and other documents were used at the hearing has been filed, but the affidavits are only identified by the names of the parties who made them, and certain indorsements. It has been held that such an authentication of papers is insufficient. (Herrlich [610]*610v. McDonald, 80 Cal. 472; Somers v. Somers, 81 Cal. 608.)

Order affirmed.

Fox, J., concurred.

Paterson, J.

I have considered the affidavits, and think the order of the court is correct.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 P. 842, 85 Cal. 609, 1890 Cal. LEXIS 958, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-andross-cal-1890.

Opinion

I have considered the affidavits, and think the order of the court is correct.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack