Jewell v. McKinley

California Supreme Court

Jewell v. McKinley

54 Cal. 600

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1880

DocketNo. 6,028

StatusPublished

This text of 54 Cal. 600 (Jewell v. McKinley) 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

Jewell v. McKinley, 54 Cal. 600 (Cal. 1880).

Pincite

Opinion

Department No. 1, by the Court:

To determine the questions argued in the briefs of counsel, would be to determine the cause on the merits in advance, of the trial. This, as the case is presented, we think we ought not to do. We therefore express no opinion as to the validity or invalidity of the ordinance under which the defendants seek to justify their obstruction of the street in question, but upon the authority of Parrott v. Floyd, 54 Cal. 534, affirm the order.

Order affirmed.

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

Department No. 1, by the Court:

To determine the questions argued in the briefs of counsel, would be to determine the cause on the merits in advance, of the trial. This, as the case is presented, we think we ought not to do. We therefore express no opinion as to the validity or invalidity of the ordinance under which the defendants seek to justify their obstruction of the street in question, but upon the authority of Parrott v. Floyd, 54 Cal. 534, affirm the order.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 Cal. 600, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jewell-v-mckinley-cal-1880.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack