Richter v. Fresno Canal & Irrigation Co.

36 P. 96, 101 Cal. 582, 1894 Cal. LEXIS 1080
California Supreme Court·Decided March 13, 1894·No. No. 18238·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

Fitzgerald, J.—

Action to abate an alleged public

nuisance. Plaintiff had judgment, and the Fresno Mining Company, intervenor, appeals from the judgment and the order denying its motion for a new trial.

It appears that certain material findings in this case are attacked by the specifications on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence to support them.

But as the respondent herein has not seen fit to file a brief, or to argue the case orally, we do not feel called upon to perform the duty of counsel by hunting through the record for the purpose of discovering evidence to , support the findings, which it was his duty, if it existed, to point out to the court.

Under such circumstances this court will assume, without looking into the record, that the point urged by appellant that the evidence is insufficient to justify the findings attacked, is well taken.

Judgment and order reversed.

McFarland, J., and De Haven, J., concurred.

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

Richter v. Fresno Canal & Irrigation Co., 36 P. 96, 101 Cal. 582, 1894 Cal. LEXIS 1080 (Cal. 1894).

36 P. 96 (Richter v. Fresno Canal & Irrigation Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
119 Cal. App. 3d 193 (California Court of Appeal, 1981)
Citizens National Trust & Savings Bank v. Scott
222 Cal. App. 2d 718 (California Court of Appeal, 1963)
Duisenberg-Wichman & Co. v. Johnson
7 P.2d 1081 (California Court of Appeal, 1932)
Lutz v. Merchants Nat. Bank
177 P. 158 (California Supreme Court, 1918)
Bullock v. Bullock
155 P. 1009 (California Court of Appeal, 1916)
Rudd v. Wilson
1912 OK 147 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
Butler v. McSpadden
1910 OK 5 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1910)
Nettograph Machine Co. v. Brown and Trueblood
1907 OK 83 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1907)
Kelly v. Bradbury
37 P. 872 (California Supreme Court, 1894)
Davis v. Hart
37 P. 486 (California Supreme Court, 1894)