Adams v. Andross
WILLIAM ADAMS v. PORTER H. ANDROSS
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- John D. Works (author), A. V. Paterson
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 — Works
Works, J.
This is an appeal from an order denying an injunction. Neither of the parties has taken sufficient interest in the case to file a brief. It is apparent that the motion for the injunction was supported by the plaintiff and resisted by the defendant on affidavits. A bill of exceptions was filed, which simply recites that certain affidavits, naming them, were read, but the affidavits are not set out. This, of course, furnishes nothing for this court to act upon. Certain affidavits appear in the transcript, and a certificate of the judge that the affidavits of certain persons and other documents were used at the hearing has been filed, but the affidavits are only identified by the names of the parties who made them, and certain indorsements. It has been held that such an authentication of papers is insufficient. (Herrlich *610v. McDonald, 80 Cal. 472; Somers v. Somers, 81 Cal. 608.)
Order affirmed.
Fox, J., concurred.
Paterson, J.
I have considered the affidavits, and think the order of the court is correct.
Cites, in this corpus
- Somers v. Somers No. 13169 · 1889-12-04
- Herrlich v. McDonald No. 12161 · 1889-09-11
Cited by
- San Diego Savings Bank v. Goodsell L.A. No. 1012. · 1902-10-07