Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
BRYAN v. PINNEY, 1896 — 162 U.S. 419 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
BRYAN v. PINNEY
162 U.S. 41940 L. Ed. 1023·Supreme Court of the United States·1896
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
BRYAN v. PINNEY.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF ARIZOFA.
No. 199.
Submitted December 19, 1895.
Decided April 13, 1896.
Bryan v. Brasius, ante 415, followed.
The case is stated in the opinion.
Mr. William A. Me Kenney, Mr. Webster Street and Mr. B. Goodrich for appellant.
Mr. A. O. Baker, Mr. A. H. Garland and Mr. R. G-. Garland for appellees.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Justice Shiras]
Mr. Justice Shiras
delivered the opinion of the court.
This was an action of ejectment brought by T. J. Bryan in the district court of the Second Judicial District of the Territory of Arizona, against D. H. Pinney, Mary E. Pinney, M. H. Sherman, George II. Mitchell, George W. Maull and the Bank of Napa, to recover possession of block 98 in the town of Phoenix, county of Maricopa. The facts of this case, so far as they present questions for our consideration, are similar to those of the case of Bryan v. Brasius, just decided, and for the' reasons there given, and on the authorities there cited, the judgment of the Supreme.Court of Arizona is
Affirmed.