Purdy v. Rahl

California Supreme Court

Purdy v. Rahl

21 P. 971, 3 Cal. Unrep. 106

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1889

DocketNo. 11,921

StatusPublished

This text of 21 P. 971 (Purdy v. Rahl) 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

Purdy v. Rahl, 21 P. 971, 3 Cal. Unrep. 106 (Cal. 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

VANCLIFF, C.

On the twenty-fourth day of January, 1889, it was ordered by the court that in this cause appellant be allowed thirty days to file brief, respondent ten days to answer, and appellant five days to reply; and on the twenty-fifth day of March following the court ordered the submission of the cause. But no brief or points and authorities have been filed by either party. We therefore advise that the judgment and order appealed from be affirmed.

We concur: Foote, C.; Hayne, C.

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion the judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.

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

VANCLIFF, C.

On the twenty-fourth day of January, 1889, it was ordered by the court that in this cause appellant be allowed thirty days to file brief, respondent ten days to answer, and appellant five days to reply; and on the twenty-fifth day of March following the court ordered the submission of the cause. But no brief or points and authorities have been filed by either party. We therefore advise that the judgment and order appealed from be affirmed.

We concur: Foote, C.; Hayne, C.

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion the judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 P. 971, 3 Cal. Unrep. 106, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/purdy-v-rahl-cal-1889.