Faris v. Lampson
FANNIE FARIS v. DAVID LAMPSON
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Foote (author), Issac S. Belcher, Hayne
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion — Foote
Foote, C.
— In this case no oral argument was had, nor did the appellants file any points or authorities; and having thus omitted to point out the errors of which they complain, the judgment should be affirmed without an examination of the record. (Mokelumne H. C. M. Co. v. Woodbury, 10 Cal. 188; Edmondson v. Alameda Co., 24 Cal. 350; Holm v. Roach, 25 Cal. 37; Hickinbotham v. Monroe, 28 Cal. 489; Brewster v. Johnson, 51 Cal. 222; Estate of Montgomery, 59 Cal. 583.)
Belcher, C. C., and Hayne, C., concurred.
The Court.
— For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, judgment affirmed.
Cites, in this corpus
- In re the Estate of Montgomery No. 7,997 · 1881-11-15
- Brewster v. Johnson No. 4835 · 1876-07-01
- Hickinbotham v. Monroe · 1865-10-15
- Ex parte Burrill · 1864-07-01
- Holm v. Roach · 1864-07-01
- Mokelumne Hill Canal & Mining Co. v. Woodbury · 1858-07-01
Cited by
- Peek v. Peek No. 12315 · 1888-03-20