Legal Opinion

Tucker v. Constable

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided April 18, 1888PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Appeal from Union Connty.

1Opinion of the CourtStrahan, J.

The notice of appeal contains nineteen assignments of error; but counsel for appellant have failed to appear or file a brief in support of same. In such case the better practice is to affirm the judgment without an examination of the alleged errors, and this judgment will be affirmed for that reason. (Kelly v. McCormick, 28 Cal. 318; Edmondson v. Alameda County, 24 N. Y 349 Hutton v. Reed, 25 Cal. 478; Hickinbotham v. Monroe, 28 Cal. 489; Brewster v. Johnson, 51 Cal. 222

In the last case cited the court say: “We decline to perform the duty of counsel by examining the record to ascertain, if *240pos…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Hidden v. JordanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
  2. Hutton v. ReedCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
  3. Brewster v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1876
  4. Hickinbotham v. MonroeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. State v. McGinnisOregon Supreme Court · 1889

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API