Butte Co. v. Boydstun
BUTTE CO. v. BOYDSTUN
- Area
- civil
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
By 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. Bryan, 68 Cal. 57, 8 Pac. 673.
Judgment affirmed.
Cites, in this corpus
- Tehama County v. Bryan No. 9782 · 1885-11-25
Cited by
- City of Santa Ana v. Harlin No. 19030 · 1893-09-12