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.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Citation: 159 U.S. 415
Docket No: No. 566
Decided: November 11, 1895
Court: United States Supreme Court
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
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)