Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
[159 U.S. 415, 417] Wm. Matthews and Wm. Craig, for plaintiff in error.
S. W. Holladay and E. Burke Holladay, for defendants in error.
Mr. Chief Justice FULLER.
The opinions of the supreme court of California in this case are reported 68 Cal. 439, 9 Pac. 655; 93 Cal. 241, 29 Pac. 54; 102 Cal. 661, 36 Pac. 927. The motion to dismiss is sustained on the authority of San Francisco v. Itsell, 133 U.S. 65 , 10 Sup. Ct. 241; Beatty v. Benton, 135 U.S. 244 , 10 Sup. Ct. 747; Eustis v. Bolles, 150 U.S. 361 , 14 Sup. Ct. 131, and cases cited. And see Hoadley v. San Francisco, 94 U.S. 4 ; Hoadley's Adm'r v. San Francisco, 124 U.S. 639 , 8 Sup. Ct. 659.
Writ of error dismissed.
Was this helpful?
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)