Case Name: LOUIS P. DREXLER, Respondent, v. SEAL ROCK TOBACCO COMPANY, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1889-04-20
Citations: 78 Cal. 624
Docket Number: No. 11022
Parties: LOUIS P. DREXLER, Respondent, v. SEAL ROCK TOBACCO COMPANY, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 78
Pages: 624–625

Head Matter:
[No. 11022.
Department One.
April 20, 1889.]
LOUIS P. DREXLER, Respondent, v. SEAL ROCK TOBACCO COMPANY, Appellant.
Appeal—Omission to File Brief—Affirmance -without Examination of Record. — The judgment or order appealed from will be affirmed without an examination of the record, when the cause is not orally argued and the appellant neglects to file any brief.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial.
The action was brought on a promissory note alleged to have been executed by the defendant. Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff, from which, and from an order refusing a new trial, the defendant appealed. The further facts are stated in the opinion.
James L. Crittenden, and Ben Morgan, for Appellant.
W. U. Sharp, and McAllister & Bergin, for Respondent.

Opinion:
Belcher, C. C.
— In this case the appeal was taken in February, 1885, and points and authorities on behalf of the respondent were filed in September, 1888. The case has never been orally argued, and no brief has ever been filed on behalf of appellant. In January, 1889, the case was submitted on the briefs on file. Under these circumstances the settled rule of this court is, tliat the judg ment will be affirmed without looking into the record. ' (Hickinbotham v. Monroe, 28 Cal. 489; Brewster v. Johnson, 51 Cal. 222; Faris v. Lampson, 73 Cal. 191; Peek v. Peek, 75 Cal. 298.)
We advise, therefore, that the judgment and order be affirmed.
PIayne, 0., and Foote, C., concurred.
The Court.
— For the reasons given in the foregoing' opinion, the judgment and order are affirmed.