Paxson v. Hale

California Supreme Court Apr 5, 1869 No. No. 1514Published

Before: Crockett, Sanderson, Sprague

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court reaffirmed its previous judgment and ordered that a peremptory mandamus be issued in favor of the petitioner.

Issues

Whether the previous judgment should be maintained after considering the defendant's late-filed closing brief.

Disposition. Judgment reaffirmed; peremptory mandamus issued.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“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.”

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.

Paxson v. Hale

AI Brief

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief