Utah Canal Enlargement & Extension Co. v. London Co.
This text of 60 P. 722 (Utah Canal Enlargement & Extension Co. v. London Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Arizona Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
This appeal is taken under the act of the legislative assembly approved March 18, 1897, one of the mandatory provisions of which is that “the brief of the plain[2]*2tiff in error or appellant shall . . „ contain a distinct enumeration in the form of propositions of the several errors relied on, and all errors not assigned in the printed brief shall be deemed to have been waived.” There is no assignmént of errors contained in the brief of the appellant in this ease, and in the omission to distinctly specify any ground of error for the reversal or modification of the judgment appealed from the appellant has failed of compliance with the statute. No error is apparent upon the face of the record, and the judgment of the court below is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
60 P. 722, 7 Ariz. 1, 1900 Ariz. LEXIS 45, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/utah-canal-enlargement-extension-co-v-london-co-ariz-1900.