Zeigler v. Bonnell

PETERS, P. J.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment in a quiet title action determining that she and defendant own, as tenants in common, undivided half interests in a designated parcel of real property. On this appeal plaintiff urges that she owns the parcel free and clear of any claim of defendant.

Although given ample opportunity to do so, respondent has filed no brief on this appeal, nor has he or his counsel suggested any theory upon which the judgment may be sustained. 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 Pac. 896] ;

Frank Graves S. etc. Co.

v.

Orange County Bond & Mtg. Corp.,

111 Cal. App. 475 [295 Pac. 859]), and are under no duty to seek out points of law in support of the judgment. We are entitled to assume that respondent has abandoned any attempt to support the judgment. (Duisenberg-Wichman

& Co.

v.

Johnson,

123 Cal. App. 125 [10 P. (2d) 1010];

Doud

v.

Jackson,

102 Cal. App. 213 [283 Pac. 107].) 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,

51 Cal. App. 114 [196 Pac. 84] ;

Lapique

v.

Walsh,

51 Cal. App. 191 [196 Pac. 512].)

The facts of this case are as follows: In January, 1935, William B. Nash, and his daughter, appellant herein, took title to the parcel of real property here involved as joint tenants. In July of 1935 respondent sued William B. Nash to recover a balance due on a promissory note executed by Nash, and attached the real property. In December, 1935,