Drexler v. Seal Rock Tobacco Co.

California Supreme Court

Drexler v. Seal Rock Tobacco Co.

21 P. 372, 78 Cal. 624, 1889 Cal. LEXIS 650

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedApril 20, 1889

DocketNo. 11022

StatusPublished

This text of 21 P. 372 (Drexler v. Seal Rock Tobacco Co.) 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

Drexler v. Seal Rock Tobacco Co., 21 P. 372, 78 Cal. 624, 1889 Cal. LEXIS 650 (Cal. 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

Belcher, C. C.

— In this case the appeal was taken in February, 1885, and points and authorities on behalf of the respondent were filed in September, 1888. The case has never been orally argued, and no brief has ever been filed on behalf of appellant. In January, 1889, the case was submitted on the briefs on file. Under these circumstances the settled rule of this court is, tliat the judg[625]*625ment will be affirmed without looking into the record. ’ (Hickinbotham v. Monroe, 28 Cal. 489; Brewster v. Johnson, 51 Cal. 222; Faris v. Lampson, 73 Cal. 191; Peek v. Peek, 75 Cal. 298.)

We advise, therefore, that the judgment and order be affirmed.

PIayne, 0., and Foote, C., concurred.

The Court.

— For the reasons given in the foregoing' opinion, the judgment and order are affirmed.

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

Belcher, C. C.

— In this case the appeal was taken in February, 1885, and points and authorities on behalf of the respondent were filed in September, 1888. The case has never been orally argued, and no brief has ever been filed on behalf of appellant. In January, 1889, the case was submitted on the briefs on file. Under these circumstances the settled rule of this court is, tliat the judg[625]*625ment will be affirmed without looking into the record. ’ (Hickinbotham v. Monroe, 28 Cal. 489; Brewster v. Johnson, 51 Cal. 222; Faris v. Lampson, 73 Cal. 191; Peek v. Peek, 75 Cal. 298.)

We advise, therefore, that the judgment and order be affirmed.

PIayne, 0., and Foote, C., concurred.

The Court.

— For the reasons given in the foregoing' opinion, the judgment and order are affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 P. 372, 78 Cal. 624, 1889 Cal. LEXIS 650, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/drexler-v-seal-rock-tobacco-co-cal-1889.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack