Drexler v. Seal Rock Tobacco Co.

21 P. 372, 78 Cal. 624, 1889 Cal. LEXIS 650
California Supreme Court·Decided April 20, 1889·No. No. 11022·Published

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] ment 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

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

21 P. 372 (Drexler v. Seal Rock Tobacco Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hickinbotham v. Monroe
28 Cal. 489 (California Supreme Court, 1865)
Brewster v. Johnson
51 Cal. 222 (California Supreme Court, 1876)
Reynolds v. Lincoln
14 P. 674 (California Supreme Court, 1887)
Peek v. Peek
17 P. 213 (California Supreme Court, 1888)