From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Shasta County v. Balaklala Consol Copper Co.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jan 9, 1922
278 F. 158 (9th Cir. 1922)

Opinion


278 F. 158 (9th Cir. 1922) SHASTA COUNTY v. BALAKLALA CONSOL. COPPER CO. No. 3762. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. January 9, 1922

Rehearing Denied February 20, 1922.

In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Second Division of the Northern District of California; Frank H. Rudkin, Judge.

Suit by the Balaklala Consolidated Copper Company against Shasta County. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Jesse W. Carter, Dist. Atty., of Redding, Cal., and Morrison, Dunne & Brobeck, of San Francisco, Cal. (Edward Hohfeld, of San Francisco, Cal., of counsel), for plaintiff in error.

F. J. Solinsky, of San Francisco, Cal., W. D. Tillotson, of Redding, Cal., and C. W. Durbrow, of San Francisco, Cal., for defendant in error.

Before GILBERT, ROSS, and HUNT, Circuit Judges.

HUNT, Circuit Judge.

Upon authority of County of Shasta v. Mountain Copper Co., Limited, 278 F. 155, the decree of the District Court is affirmed.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Shasta County v. Balaklala Consol Copper Co.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jan 9, 1922
278 F. 158 (9th Cir. 1922)
Case details for

Shasta County v. Balaklala Consol Copper Co.

Case Details

Full title:SHASTA COUNTY v. BALAKLALA CONSOL. COPPER CO. [1]

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jan 9, 1922

Citations

278 F. 158 (9th Cir. 1922)