From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dougherty v. Nevada Bank

U.S.
Dec 9, 1895
160 U.S. 171 (1895)

Opinion

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

No. 98.

Argued and submitted December 6, 1895. Decided December 9, 1895.

Wood v. Brady, 150 U.S. 18, affirmed and applied to this case.

Mr. J.C. Bates for plaintiff in error submitted on his brief.

Mr. James G. Maguire for defendant in error.

Mr. John Garber, Mr. John H. Boalt, and Mr. Thomas B. Bishop filed a brief for defendant in error.


THIS was an action brought by the plaintiff in error to foreclose a municipal tax or street assessment lien. In a brief filed for defendant in error it was stated that the judgment here sought to be reversed involved the validity of precisely similar extensions to those sought to be reversed in Wood v. Brady, 150 U.S. 18, and under the same statute. This statement was not denied or challenged by the counsel for the plaintiff in error.


The writ of error is dismissed on the authority of Wood v. Brady, 150 U.S. 18.

Writ dismissed.


Summaries of

Dougherty v. Nevada Bank

U.S.
Dec 9, 1895
160 U.S. 171 (1895)
Case details for

Dougherty v. Nevada Bank

Case Details

Full title:DOUGHERTY v . NEVADA BANK

Court:U.S.

Date published: Dec 9, 1895

Citations

160 U.S. 171 (1895)

Citing Cases

Wynn v. Frost

t to which our attention is directed is Freeman on Judgments vol. 1, sec. 114, wherein the author discusses…