Tarvin v. Davey

MARKS, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment quieting plaintiffs’ title to real property in the city of Corona, in Riverside County, and refusing defendants relief on their cross-complaint.

[848]

Counsel appearing for defendants in this court is not the counsel who tried the case, prepared the record on appeal and filed appellants’ opening brief.

This case was on the November 17, 1942, calendar of this court. Counsel for plaintiffs had filed no brief but he appeared and made a very short argument. In response to a suggestion by the court that a brief should be filed in behalf of his clients, he asked for and was granted twenty days in which to file a typewritten brief. Although that time expired on December 7, 1942, nothing further has been heard from him and no brief has been filed. What was said in

Zeigler

v.

Bonnell,

52 Cal.App.2d 217 [126 P.2d 118], is appropriate here:

“Under such circumstances, we are entitled to accept the facts as stated in appellant’s brief (Rule V, § 1, of the Rules of the Supreme Court and District Courts of Appeal;

Pendergrass

v.

Axx,

111 Cal.App. 478 [295 P. 896] ;

Frank Graves S. etc. Co.

v.

Orange County Bond & Mtg. Corp.,

111 Cal.App. 475 [295 P. 859]), and are under no duty to seek out points of law in support of the judgment. . . . This shirking of responsibility on the part of respondent and his counsel should be strongly condemned, imposing as it does an unfair and improper burden on the court.

(Mosher

v.

Johnson,