From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Butte County v. Boydstun

Supreme Court of California
Aug 31, 1886
2 Cal. Unrep. 699 (Cal. 1886)

Opinion

         Department 2.

         COUNSEL

          J. C. Gray, F. C. Lusk, and Hundley & Gale, for respondent, Butte Co.

          T. B. Reardon & Son, for appellant, Boydstun.


          OPINION

          THE COURT.

         There was no misjoinder of parties defendant. The complaint was sufficient. There was no error in striking out that portion of defendant’s, Boydstun’s, answer, which attempted to raise an issue as to the necessity of taking the land for the road. The question of necessity is settled by the board of supervisors, and, having so determined, it is not a question for the court to pass on. Tehama Co. v. Brygan, 8 P. 673.

          Judgment affirmed.


Summaries of

Butte County v. Boydstun

Supreme Court of California
Aug 31, 1886
2 Cal. Unrep. 699 (Cal. 1886)
Case details for

Butte County v. Boydstun

Case Details

Full title:BUTTE CO. v. BOYDSTUN.

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Aug 31, 1886

Citations

2 Cal. Unrep. 699 (Cal. 1886)
2 Cal. Unrep. 699

Citing Cases

Sanford v. Savings & Loan Soc.

It is objected by defendant that (1) these provisions are not applicable to a suit in equity when the party…

Ketchum v. Barber

COUNSEL           [2 Cal.Unrep. 699] Eagon & Armstrong, for plaintiff and appellant.           McGee &…