Tax

DOUGHERTY v. NEVADA BANK

160 U.S. 17140 L. Ed. 382·Supreme Court of the United States·1895

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

DOUGHERTY v. NEVADA BANK. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. No. 98. Argued and submitted December 6, 1895. Decided December 9, 1895. Wood v. Brady, 150 U. S. 18, affirmed and applied to this case. This was an action brought by the plaintiff in error to foreclose a municipal-tax or street assessment lien. In a brief filed for defendant in error it was stated that the judgment here sought to be reversed involved the validity of precisely similar extensions to' those sought to be reversed in Wood v. Brady, 150 U. S. 18, and under the same statute. This statement was not denied or challenged by the counsel for the plaintiff in error. Mr. J. O. Bates for plaintiff in error submitted on his brief. Mr. James G. Maguire for defendant in error. Mr. John Garber, Mr. John H. Boalt, and Mr. Thomas B. Bishop filed a brief for defendant in error. [MAJORITY — Mr. Justice Field :] Mr. Justice Field : The writ of error is dismissed on the authority of Wood v. Brady, 150 U. S. 18. Writ dismissed.