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.
Agricultural Company v. Pierce County, 1867 — 73 U.S. 246 · caselaw · US
General
Agricultural Company v. Pierce County
73 U.S. 2466 Wall. 246·Supreme Court of the United States·1867
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
Agricultural Company v. Pierce County.
A writ of error made returnable to a day different from the return day fixed by statute as the day on which the term commences, dismissed.
Error to the Supreme Court of Washington Territory.
The writ of error bore date January 20th, 1862. It was on its face made returnable on the second Monday of December next after its date, when it should have been the first Monday of that month, which is by law the day on which the terms of this court commence each year.
For this cause (Mr. Justice MILLER, announcing the order), the writ of error was dismissed under the authority of the cases of Carroll v. Dorsey, Insurance. Company v. Mordecai, and Porter v. Foley, heretofore decided by this court.
Messrs. Lander and Carlisle, for the plaintiff in error ; no opposite counsel appearing nor having entered their appearance of record.
20 Howard, 204.
21 Id. 195.
Id. 393.