From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bullock v. Bullock

Court of Appeal of California, Third District
Jan 24, 1916
29 Cal.App. 463 (Cal. Ct. App. 1916)

Opinion

Civ. No. 1480.

January 24, 1916.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Mateo County. George H. Buck, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Stanislaus A. Riley, for Appellant.

C. W. Eastin, for Respondent.


Appellant filed her brief in the supreme court on the thirty-first day of August, 1914. The cause was thereafter transferred to this court and came on regularly for hearing on the nineteenth day of this month. Respondent has never filed any brief, either in the supreme or this court nor did he appear at the oral argument. He was regularly served with notice that on said nineteenth day of January, 1916, appellant would move this court "for an order reversing the order appealed from without consideration of the cause upon its merits . . . upon the ground that respondent has not filed his points and authorities herein." As stated, there was no appearance by respondent.

The order appealed from is therefore reversed on the authority of Richter v. Fresno Canal Irr. Co., 101 Cal. 582, [36 P. 96]; Davis v. Hart, 103 Cal. 530, [37 P. 486]; Kelly v. Bradbury, 104 Cal. 237, [37 P. 872].

Chipman, P. J., and Hart, J., concurred.


Summaries of

Bullock v. Bullock

Court of Appeal of California, Third District
Jan 24, 1916
29 Cal.App. 463 (Cal. Ct. App. 1916)
Case details for

Bullock v. Bullock

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH J. BULLOCK, Respondent, v. MAY E. BULLOCK, Appellant

Court:Court of Appeal of California, Third District

Date published: Jan 24, 1916

Citations

29 Cal.App. 463 (Cal. Ct. App. 1916)
155 P. 1009

Citing Cases

Lutz v. Merchants Nat. Bank

The matter is now submitted for decision upon the brief of the appellant and the typewritten transcript,…

Duisenberg-Wichman Co. v. Johnson

[1] Under the earlier decisions in this state it was held that where material findings were challenged on…