Tax

NICHOLAS DABOVICH, Respondent, v. JOSEPH EMERIC, Appellant

1 Cal. Unrep. 90·Supreme Court of California·1860·CA

I concur: Cope, J.

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

NICHOLAS DABOVICH, Respondent, v. JOSEPH EMERIC, Appellant. No. 2627; July 3, 1860. Appeal — Reappearance of Case — Reaffirmance.—A Judgment in Accordance with the principles of a past decision on appeal of the same case is to be affirmed. APPEAL from Fourth Judicial District, San Francisco County Whitcomb', Pringle & Fulton for respondent; E. W. F,“ Sloan for appellant. See Dabovich v. Emeric, 12 Cal. 171. [MAJORITY — BALDWIN, J.] BALDWIN, J. This case has been tried three times and verdicts had for plaintiff. It seems to have been tried the last time in accordance with the principles of the decision here when the case was last in this court. We see no such error as to induce us to interfere with the judgment. The point as to the costs is not well tafeen. The motion to retax should have been made below within the time prescribed. The judgment is affirmed. I concur: Cope, J.