Fitzgerald v. Urton

California Supreme Court

Fitzgerald v. Urton

4 Cal. 236

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Fitzgerald v. Urton. Read the opinion of the Court — 5 Cal. 308 →

California Supreme Court·Decided July 15, 1854·Published

Opinion

Mr. Justice Heydeneeldt

delivered the opinion of the Court..

Mr. Ch. J. Murray concurred.

We can see no reason why the District Court denied its jurisdiction. It has been suggested that the reason may/ have been, because the Act, etc., gives jurisdiction of cases of nuisance to the County Court; but surely this cannot avail to take away the jurisdiction given to the District Court by the Constitution.

The judgment is reversed and the-cause remanded.

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

Mr. Justice Heydeneeldt

delivered the opinion of the Court..

Mr. Ch. J. Murray concurred.

We can see no reason why the District Court denied its jurisdiction. It has been suggested that the reason may/ have been, because the Act, etc., gives jurisdiction of cases of nuisance to the County Court; but surely this cannot avail to take away the jurisdiction given to the District Court by the Constitution.

The judgment is reversed and the-cause remanded.

Fitzgerald v. Urton, 4 Cal. 236 (Cal. 1854).

Pincite

4 Cal. 236 (Fitzgerald v. Urton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.