Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

16 Or. 239

Tucker v. Constable

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided April 18, 1888

Oregon Supreme Court · decided 1888-04-18

<p>Appellate Practice— Failure of Appellant to Appear or File Bribe.—In a civil caso, if the appellant fail to appear in this court and files no brief, the judgment will be affirmed without any examination of the record or the assignment of errors. This court cannot perform the duty of counsel.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently February 1889

1 state decisions

Relies on Hidden v. Jordan · Hutton v. Reed · Brewster v. Johnson

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1888-04-18

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Strahan, J.

¶1The notice of appeal contains nineteen assignments of error; but counsel for appellant have failed to appear or file a brief in support of same. In such case the better practice is to affirm the judgment without an examination of the alleged errors, and this judgment will be affirmed for that reason. (Kelly v. McCormick, 28 Cal. 318; Edmondson v. Alameda County, 24 N. Y 349 Hutton v. Reed, 25 Cal. 478; Hickinbotham v. Monroe, 28 Cal. 489; Brewster v. Johnson, 51 Cal. 222

¶2In the last case cited the court say: “We decline to perform the duty of counsel by examining the record to ascertain, if *240possible, error may not have intervened in the court below.” Notwithstanding this rule of practice in this particular case, we have examined the record and failed to find any error therein.

¶3Let the judgment be affirmed.

/16/or/239 · .json · Public domain