Paxson v. Hale

California Supreme Court

Paxson v. Hale

1 Cal. Unrep. 472

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedApril 5, 1869

DocketNo. 1514

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Cal. Unrep. 472 (Paxson v. Hale) 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

Paxson v. Hale, 1 Cal. Unrep. 472 (Cal. 1869).

Pincite

Opinion

SANDERSON, J.

We rendered a judgment in this case at the October term, 1867; but, it having been claimed on the part of the defendant that the case had been taken up before the time for filing his closing brief had expired, we set the judgment aside upon his motion. Since then his brief has come in, and we have again considered the case. Our conclusion is the same as at first, and the writ must go for the reasons stated in our former opinion.

Let a peremptory mandamus issue, according to the prayer of the petitioner.

We concur: Sprague, J.; Crockett, J.

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

SANDERSON, J.

We rendered a judgment in this case at the October term, 1867; but, it having been claimed on the part of the defendant that the case had been taken up before the time for filing his closing brief had expired, we set the judgment aside upon his motion. Since then his brief has come in, and we have again considered the case. Our conclusion is the same as at first, and the writ must go for the reasons stated in our former opinion.

Let a peremptory mandamus issue, according to the prayer of the petitioner.

We concur: Sprague, J.; Crockett, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Cal. Unrep. 472, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paxson-v-hale-cal-1869.