DocketNumber: Appeal, No. 205
Filed Date: 2/12/1891
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024
Judgment affirmed.
Note. — It is suggested that the supreme court overlooked the second proposition involved in the above case. That branch of the case was only briefly argued by counsel for plaintiff in error, and counsel for defendants in error were not heard. That point was not noticed in the opinion of the court below.