From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

W.T. Raleigh Co. v. Armstrong

Supreme Court of Mississippi, Division B
Mar 28, 1932
140 So. 527 (Miss. 1932)

Summary

In W.T. Raleigh Co. v. Armstrong, 165 Miss. 380, 140 So. 527, we stated: "No brief has been filed by appellees in this case, nor was there any oral argument.

Summary of this case from Somerville v. Anderson

Opinion

No. 29820.

March 28, 1932.

1. APPEAL AND ERROR.

Presumption on appeals is that judgment is correct.

2. APPEAL AND ERROR.

Judgment, in absence of brief or oral argument by appellees, will be reversed without prejudice, where appellant's brief is fairly convincing of error.

3. APPEAL AND ERROR.

Appellate court, in absence of brief or oral argument by appellee, may accept appellant's brief as confessed, and reverse, or reverse without prejudice when not convinced from examination of record that judgment is correct.

APPEAL from circuit court of Alcorn county. HON. THOS. J. JOHNSTON, J.

W.C. Sweat, of Corinth.

Brief of counsel addressed to merits of the case.


No brief has been filed by appellees in this case, nor was there any oral argument. Appellant has filed a brief which in all respects complies with the rules, and which, upon the statement of the facts and the application of the principles of law to the facts, is fairly convincing, in the absence of any reply thereto, that there is error in the judgment. We have examined the record, and, although the presumption is that the judgment is correct, it is not apparent to us from the record, in the light of appellant's brief, that the judgment is in fact correct. In this situation, the judgment must be reversed without prejudice.

There seems to be no uniform rule of procedure in the various appellate courts of the several states as to what shall be done when the appellee makes no oral argument and files no brief. Some of them hold that such default on appellee's part will be taken as a confession of the errors assigned and of the statement of facts, and citations of law, in appellant's brief and argument, and the judgment will thereupon be reversed as a matter of course. Other courts have said that they will to an extent disregard the default of the appellee and will determine the case on the merits; but even those courts have generally said that they will not devote any extended or laborious efforts to search out from the record the facts or the theories upon which an affirmance may be based, and have called attention to the liability to error, and to the danger of bringing forward and in acting upon points or theories that were not presented or passed upon in the trial court. And sometimes the obvious point has been made that an appellee has no right to call upon the court to brief his case for him, for this would be to call upon the court to act first as attorneys for appellee, and, when that function has been performed, then as judges to decide the case.

We shall, in this court, at our discretion, on default of appellee, take one or the other of the following two courses: (1) When the record is complicated or of large volume, and the case has been thoroughly briefed by appellant with a clear statement of the facts, and with apt and applicable citation of authorities, so that the brief makes out an apparent case of error, we will not regard ourselves as obliged to look to the record or to search through it to find something by which to avoid the force of appellant's presentation, but will accept appellant's brief as confessed and will reverse. Or (2) when the record is in such condition that we can conveniently examine it, and when upon such an examination we can readily perceive a sound and unmistakable basis or ground upon which the judgment may be safely affirmed, we will take that course and affirm, thereby to that extent disregarding the default of appellee. But when, taking into view the argument presented by appellant, the basis or grounds of the judgment, and the facts in support of it are not apparent, or are not such that the court could with entire confidence and safety proceed to affirmance, the judgment will be reversed without prejudice. This case has fallen within the statement contained in the foregoing sentence, and the result is that the judgment must be reversed without prejudice and the case remanded.

Reversed and remanded.


Summaries of

W.T. Raleigh Co. v. Armstrong

Supreme Court of Mississippi, Division B
Mar 28, 1932
140 So. 527 (Miss. 1932)

In W.T. Raleigh Co. v. Armstrong, 165 Miss. 380, 140 So. 527, we stated: "No brief has been filed by appellees in this case, nor was there any oral argument.

Summary of this case from Somerville v. Anderson

In Raleigh Co. v. Armstrong, 165 Miss. 380, 140 So. 527, we stated in effect that this would not be done by us, and we there laid down the rules under which we would act in this state of case; and applying the rule to the present case, the judgment must be reversed without prejudice, and the cause remanded.

Summary of this case from Ramsay v. Milner

In W.T. Raleigh Co. v. Armstrong, 165 Miss. 380, 140 So. 527 (1932), the supreme court recognized that there is no uniform rule or procedure to guide the reviewing court when an appellee fails to file a brief.

Summary of this case from Mississippi Employment Security Commission v. Woods

In W.T. Raleigh Co. v. Armstrong, 165 Miss. 380, 380, 140 So. 527, 527-28 (1932), the Mississippi Supreme Court recognized that there is no uniform rule or procedure to guide the reviewing court when an appellee fails to file a brief.

Summary of this case from Mississippi Employment Security Commission v. Noil

In W.T. Raleigh Co. v. Armstrong, 165 Miss. 380, 380, 140 So. 527, 527-28 (1932), the Mississippi Supreme Court recognized that there is no uniform rule of procedure to guide the reviewing court when an appellee fails to file a brief.

Summary of this case from Armstrong v. Mississippi Employment Security Commission

In W.T. Raleigh Co. v. Armstrong, 165 Miss. 380, 380, 140 So. 527, 527-28 (1932), the Mississippi Supreme Court recognized that there is no uniform rule or procedure to guide the reviewing court when an appellee fails to file a brief.

Summary of this case from Miss. Employment Sec. Com'n v. Danner
Case details for

W.T. Raleigh Co. v. Armstrong

Case Details

Full title:W.T. RALEIGH CO. v. ARMSTRONG et al

Court:Supreme Court of Mississippi, Division B

Date published: Mar 28, 1932

Citations

140 So. 527 (Miss. 1932)
140 So. 527

Citing Cases

Ladner v. Pigg

We have two options in this situation. W.T. Raleigh Co. v. Armstrong, 165 Miss. 380, 380, 140 So. 527,…

Ramsey v. Ramsey

There was no answer to this letter, either by appellee or his attorney. In W.T. Raleigh Co. v. Armstrong, 165…