Cheyney v. Smith
Arizona Supreme Court
ORIGINAL Application for Writ of Mandamus. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Dissent
WRIGHT, C. J.,
dissenting.—The court, in the majority opinion, rightly hold that section 1852 of the United States Revised Statutes, as amended, is mandatory in its terms; but the opinion holds that, when Congress said in said section that the sessions of the said legislative assemblies of the various territories should “be limited to sixty days’ duration,” it meant sixty legislative working days, and not sixty consecutive days. We are unable to concur in this view; and we now proceed to analyze this section, and endeavor to show that the language employed by Congress necessarily limits…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- National Bank v. County of YanktonSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- State ex rel. Perry v. ArringtonNevada Supreme Court · 1884
- President of the Miners' Bank v. Iowa Ex Rel. District Prosecuting AttorneySupreme Court of the United States · 1851
- Territory ex rel. Smith v. ScottSupreme Court Of The Territory Of Dakota · 1884
- People of the Territory ex rel. Haller v. ClaytonUtah Supreme Court · 1888
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.