TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Dougherty v. Henarie

Dougherty v. Henarie, 49 Cal. 686 (1875)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 1, 1875
Docket
No. 3,603
Citations
49 Cal. 686
Syllabus
Petition foe Rehearing.—Counsel should state all the points on which they rely in their briefs; and if they fail to do so, and reserve points to be urged in' a petition for a rehearing after a decision of the case, a rehearing will not be granted.
Summary
Appeal from the District Court, Twelfth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. This case was reported in the 47 Cal., p. 10, where the facts are stated. The petition for a rehearing had been mislaid, and the records of the Court failing to show that an application for a rehearing was pending, the case was reported. The opinion on the petition for rehearing is now. published for the benefit of counsel.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

By the Court :

By some accident the petition for a rehearing in this case was not brought to our attention until recently. The point relied upon in the petition is, that the tax-deed to Meyers does not contain the necessary recitals. But this point was not raised at the argument, and no objection to the deed on this ground has been urged, except in the petition for a rehearing. In the opinion, we assumed that the deed contained the proper recitals, because nothing had been alleged to the contrary, and no point of that kind was raised. The sufficiency of the deed, in this particular, not having been questioned at the argument or in the briefs of counsels, we decline to consider the point now. The proper dispatch of the business of the Court requires that counsel should state the grounds on which they rely in their briefs, and not reserve other points to be set up in a petition for a rehearing, after a decision of all the cause.

Rehearing denied.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1886–1887: 11888–1889: 11892–1893: 11900–1901: 11904–1905: 21954–1955: 218862026peak 1904 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. People v. Northey19 P. 865 (Cal. 1888) · Concurrence
  2. Sweigle v. Gates84 N.W. 481 (N.D. 1900)
  3. Traders Etc. Ins. Co. v. Pac. Emp. Ins. Co.278 P.2d 493 (Cal. Ct. App. 1955)
  4. Traders & General Insurance v. Pacific Employers Insurance278 P.2d 493 (Cal. Ct. App. 1955)
  5. Powell v. Nevada, California & Oregon Railway28 Nev. 305 (1905)
  6. Buhman v. Nickels & Brown Bros.82 P. 85 (Cal. Ct. App. 1905)

Most recent

  1. Traders Etc. Ins. Co. v. Pac. Emp. Ins. Co.278 P.2d 493 (Cal. Ct. App. 1955)
  2. Traders & General Insurance v. Pacific Employers Insurance278 P.2d 493 (Cal. Ct. App. 1955)
  3. Powell v. Nevada, California & Oregon Railway28 Nev. 305 (1905)
  4. Buhman v. Nickels & Brown Bros.82 P. 85 (Cal. Ct. App. 1905)
  5. Sweigle v. Gates84 N.W. 481 (N.D. 1900)
  6. Wundenberg v. Campbell9 Haw. 211 (1893)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list