Drexler v. Seal Rock Tobacco Co.
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial. The action was brought on a promissory note alleged to have been executed by the defendant. Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff, from which, and from an order refusing a new trial, the defendant appealed. The further facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Belcher, C. C.
— In this case the appeal was taken in February, 1885, and points and authorities on behalf of the respondent were filed in September, 1888. The case has never been orally argued, and no brief has ever been filed on behalf of appellant. In January, 1889, the case was submitted on the briefs on file. Under these circumstances the settled rule of this court is, tliat the judg*625ment will be affirmed without looking into the record. ’ (Hickinbotham v. Monroe, 28 Cal. 489; Brewster v. Johnson, 51 Cal. 222; Faris v. Lampson, 73 Cal. 191; Peek v. Peek, 75 Cal. 298.)
We advise, therefore,…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Brewster v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1876
- Hickinbotham v. MonroeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
- Peek v. PeekCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Reynolds v. LincolnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887