Bryan v. Pinney, 162 U.S. 419 (1896)

U.S. Supreme Court

Bryan v. Pinney, 162 U.S. 419 (1896)

Bryan v. Pinney

No. 199

Submitted December 19, 1895

Decided April 13, 1896

162 U.S. 419

Syllabus

Bryan v. Brasius, ante, 162 U. S. 415, followed.

The case is stated in the opinion.

U.S. Supreme Court

Bryan v. Pinney, 162 U.S. 419 (1896)

Bryan v. Pinney

No. 199

Submitted December 19, 1895

Decided April 13, 1896

162 U.S. 419

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE TERRITORY OF ARIZONA

Syllabus

Bryan v. Brasius, ante, 162 U. S. 415, followed.

The case is stated in the opinion.

MR. JUSTICE SHIRAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

This was an action of ejectment brought by T. J. Bryan in the District Court of the Second Judicial District of the Territory of Arizona against D. H. Pinney, Mary E. Pinney, M. H. Sherman, George H. Maull, and the Bank of Napa to recover possession of block 98 in the Town of Phoenix, County of Maricopa. The facts of this case, so far as they present questions for our consideration, are similar to those of the case of Bryan v. Brasius, just decided, and for the reasons there given, and on the authorities there cited, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Arizona is

Affirmed.

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.

Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.