Richter v. Fresno Canal & Irrigation Co.
This text of 36 P. 96 (Richter v. Fresno Canal & Irrigation 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.
Opinion
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
36 P. 96, 101 Cal. 582, 1894 Cal. LEXIS 1080, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richter-v-fresno-canal-irrigation-co-cal-1894.