Paxson v. Hale
JOSEPH S. PAXSON v. HENRY M. HALE, Auditor
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Silas S. Sanderson (author), Joseph B. Crockett, Sprague
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion — Sanderson
SANDERSON, J.
We rendered a judgment in this case at the October term, 1867; but, it having been claimed on the part of the defendant that the case had been taken up before the time for filing his closing brief had expired, we set the judgment aside upon his motion. Since then his brief has come in, and we have again considered the case. Our conclusion is the same as at first, and the writ must go for the reasons stated in our former opinion.
Let a peremptory mandamus issue, according to the prayer of the petitioner.
We concur: Sprague, J.; Crockett, J.