Hickinbotham v. Monroe

California Supreme Court

Hickinbotham v. Monroe

28 Cal. 489

California Supreme Court·Decided October 15, 1865·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

By the Court,

Sawyer, J.

The time for filing briefs having expired three months ago, and none having been filed, and there being no points on file,, as required by rule seventeen, the judgment is affirmed, on the authority of Edmondson v. Alameda County, 24 Cal, 349, and Hutton v. Reed, 25 Cal. 488. A like disposition will be made of all cases similarly situated, when taken up for decision in their proper order.

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

By the Court,

Sawyer, J.

The time for filing briefs having expired three months ago, and none having been filed, and there being no points on file,, as required by rule seventeen, the judgment is affirmed, on the authority of Edmondson v. Alameda County, 24 Cal, 349, and Hutton v. Reed, 25 Cal. 488. A like disposition will be made of all cases similarly situated, when taken up for decision in their proper order.

Hickinbotham v. Monroe, 28 Cal. 489 (Cal. 1865).

Pincite

28 Cal. 489 (Hickinbotham v. Monroe) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related