Butte Co. v. Boydstun

California Supreme Court

Butte Co. v. Boydstun

11 P. 781, 2 Cal. Unrep. 699

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 31, 1886

DocketNo. 11,523

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 11 P. 781 (Butte Co. v. Boydstun) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Butte Co. v. Boydstun, 11 P. 781, 2 Cal. Unrep. 699 (Cal. 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

By the COURT.

There was no misjoinder of parties defendant. The complaint was sufficient. There was no error in striking out that portion of defendant’s, Boydstun’s, answer, which attempted to raise an issue as to the necessity of taking the land for the road. The question of necessity is settled by the board of supervisors, and, having so determined, it is not a question for the court to pass on: Tehama Co. v. Bryan, 68 Cal. 57, 8 Pac. 673.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

By the COURT.

There was no misjoinder of parties defendant. The complaint was sufficient. There was no error in striking out that portion of defendant’s, Boydstun’s, answer, which attempted to raise an issue as to the necessity of taking the land for the road. The question of necessity is settled by the board of supervisors, and, having so determined, it is not a question for the court to pass on: Tehama Co. v. Bryan, 68 Cal. 57, 8 Pac. 673.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 P. 781, 2 Cal. Unrep. 699, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/butte-co-v-boydstun-cal-1886.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack