Mokelumne Hill Canal & Mining Co. v. Woodbury (1858) · DecisionDepot

Mokelumne Hill Canal & Mining Co. v. Woodbury

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1858Published

Before: Burnett

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the lower court's order dissolving an injunction because the appellant failed to provide a brief or abstract of facts specifying the alleged errors.

Issues

Whether the lower court erred in dissolving an injunction when the appellant failed to specify any errors in the record.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“There is no brief, and no abstract of facts on file, and it is only-alleged, in general terms, that the Court erred in dissolving the injunction.”

“We can not look through this large record for errors, when none have been stated by counsel.”

“The order of the District Court is, therefore, affirmed.”

Synopsis

This Court will not look through a voluminous record for errors of the Court below, where none are assigned by counsel, and where there is no abstract of facts on file.

Burnett, J., delivered the opinion of the Court Terry, C. J., and Field, J., concurring.

This is an appeal from an order of the Court helow, dissolving an injunction. The record contains a mass of affidavits, and other matter, making a transcript of near one hundred pages. There is no brief, and no abstract of facts on file, and it is only-alleged, in general terms, that the Court erred in dissolving the injunction. We can not look through this large record for errors, when none have been stated by counsel.

The order of the District Court is, therefore, affirmed.

Mokelumne Hill Canal & Mining Co. v. Woodbury

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief