Case Name: MARY JANE GAVIN, Respondent, v. PATRICK GAVIN, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1891-12-14
Citations: 92 Cal. 292
Docket Number: No. 13546
Parties: MARY JANE GAVIN, Respondent, v. PATRICK GAVIN, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 92
Pages: 292–293

Head Matter:
[No. 13546.
Department Two.
December 14, 1891.]
MARY JANE GAVIN, Respondent, v. PATRICK GAVIN, Appellant.
Appeal — Argument op Counsel — Review op Errors Assigned. — The appellate court will not do the work of counsel, and elaborately hunt up and consider what the counsel has not argued; and where the brief of counsel for appellant is substantially a mere recapitulation of the general assignments of error as they appear in the bill of exceptions, giving no reasons why the court erred, and citing no authorities, and upon a cursory view of the record no material error is noticed, the judgment will be affirmed.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order denying a new trial.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
T. J. Crowley, for Appellant.
Eugene N. D&Uprey, for Respondent.

Opinion:
McFarland, J.
The brief of counsel for appellant is substantially a mere recapitulation of the general assignments of error as they appear in the bill of exceptions. It contains frequent general statements, such as that " the evidence was insufficient to justify the decision," that " the court erred " in making certain findings of fact, that the " court erred in finding certain conclusions of law," that the " court erred in making the decree," etc. But no reasons are given why the court erred, no views are presented as to the questions sought to be raised, and no authorities cited. Under these circumstances, we can hardly be expected to do the work of counsel, and elaborately hunt up and consider what counsel has not argued. Upon a cursory view of the record, we have noticed no material error for which the judgment should be reversed.
The judgment and order denying a new trial are affirmed.
De Haven, J., and Sharpstein, J., concurred.