Emhoff v. McMann
EMHOFF v. McMANN
- Area
- civil
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
PER CURIAM.
This cause was regularly on the January calendar, 1890. When it was reached in due course and called for hearing, the appellant failed to appear, and no brief being on file, on motion of counsel for respondents, and his suggestion that the appeal was frivolous, the judgment and order appealed from were affirmed, with damages. In making this order, the court acted upon the assumption that *244the appellant had voluntarily abandoned his appeal, and, as parties do not ordinarily abandon their appeals when there is even a plausible ground to support them, we were forced to conclude that this appeal had not been taken in good faith. It now appears that the failure of appellant to file a brief was due to his ignorance of the fact that his cause was on the calendar, and an examination of the record convinces us that the appeal was not frivolous. So much of the judgment, therefore, as imposes damages for a frivolous appeal is erroneous, and is hereby set aside. We do not think, however, that counsel has offered an excuse for his failure to note the time his cause was set for hearing sufficient to justify us in ordering a rehearing in bank. Rehearing denied, but the judgment is modified to one of affirmance simply, without damages.