Matthias v. Rodgers

54 Cal. App. 515
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedOctober 10, 1921
DocketCiv. No. 3552
StatusPublished

This text of 54 Cal. App. 515 (Matthias v. Rodgers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Matthias v. Rodgers, 54 Cal. App. 515 (Cal. Ct. App. 1921).

Opinion

WORKS, J.

This is an action to quiet title. Defendant appeals from a judgment for plaintiffs.

Appellant, appearing in her own behalf, presents a brief which, although most excellent in the language employed in its composition, makes no point raising even a momentary doubt whether the judgment should be affirmed. In fact, after stating that she “has not sufficient funds to bear the expense of employment of skilled counsel”—a situation which naturally enlists our great sympathy—appellant says that “this brief must therefore make its appeal more in the nature of a human document than by an exposition of legal talent.” We cannot aid appellant, sympathize with her unfortunate situation as deeply as we may. [1] A judgment of a trial court must stand as a finality unless it be made to appear, by the party prosecuting an appeal from it, that some error has occurred in the proceedings leading to its rendition.

Judgment affirmed.

Finlayson, P. J., and Craig, J., concurred.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
54 Cal. App. 515, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matthias-v-rodgers-calctapp-1921.