Pitt
Pitt v. Rodgers
148 C.C.A. 665·234 F. 1023·1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 2156
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 24, 1916No. 2832California76 words
lead Opinion
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Nevada. Morrison, Dunno & Brobeck and Edward Hohfeld, all of San Francisco, Cal., for appellee. Upon application of counsel for appellee, and on consideration ol' certificate of clerk of the United States District Court, District of Nevada, ordered, appeal dismissed for noncompliance by the appellants with provisions of subdivision 1 of rule 16 of the Rules of Practice ( 150 Fed. cxxvii ).