General
C. B. SCOVILLE, Respondent, v. JONATHAN S. DODGE et al., as Board of Supervisors, etc., et al., Appellants
54 Cal. App. 795·District Court of Appeal of the State of California·1921·CA
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
[Civ. No. 3623.
Second Appellate District, Division One.
September 19, 1921.]
C. B. SCOVILLE, Respondent, v. JONATHAN S. DODGE et al., as Board of Supervisors, etc., et al., Appellants.
Counties — Illegal Protection District Assessment — Return op Money-—Payment op Judgment prom General Fund op County. Judgment affirmed on the authority of Brigden et al. v. Dodge et al., ante, p. 266.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. J. P. Wood, Judge.
Affirmed.
The facts are - identical with those stated in the opinion in Brigden et al. v. Dodge et al., ante, p. 266.
A. J. Hill and Gordon Boller for Appellants.
Hartley Shaw and T. C. Gould for Respondent.
[MAJORITY — THE COURT.]
THE COURT.
The facts in this case are in all essentials parallel to those shown by the record in Brigden et al. v. Dodge et al., ante, p. 266 [201 Pac. 631]. Pursuant to stipulation, both cases were submitted on the same briefs.
For the same reasons as those stated in the opinion filed in Brigden et al. v. Dodge et al. the judgment herein is affirmed.
A petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was- denied by the supreme court on November 17, 1921.
Lennon, J., Sloane, J., and Shurtleff, J., concurred.
Wilbur, J., dissented.
Shaw, J., did not participate.