Utah Canal Enlargement & Extension Co. v. London Co.
Arizona Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the District Court of the Third Judicial District in and for the County of Maricopa. 'Webster Street, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Per curiam
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*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…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Leatherwood v. RichardsonArizona Supreme Court · 1907