MICHAEL M. DEEGAN, an Infant, by HENRY NELIGH, His Guardian, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. THOMAS DEEGAN, JOHN TASSELL, DENNIS KEHOE, J. B. DAZET, W. H. COFFEY and J. C. DUNLOP, Defendants and Appellants
Deegan v. Deegan
MICHAEL M. DEEGAN, an Infant, by HENRY NELIGH, His Guardian, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. THOMAS DEEGAN, JOHN TASSELL, DENNIS KEHOE, J. B. DAZET, W. H. COFFEY and J. C. DUNLOP, Defendants and Appellants.
[No. 1410.]
MICHAEL M. DEEGAN, an Infant, by HENRY NELIGH, His Guardian, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. THOMAS DEEGAN, JOHN TASSELL, DENNIS KEHOE, J. B. DAZET, W. H. COFFEY and J. C. DUNLOP, Defendants and Appellants.
W. E. F. Deal, for Appellants:
Brief practically to the same, effect as that of appellants in the case (No. 1409) of Thomas II. Deegan, an Infant, etc., v. Thomas Deegan, et al., ante.
C. E. Mach, for Respondent:
Brief also practically to same effect as that for respondent in case No. 1409, ante.
Appeal from judgment and order overruling defendants’ motion for a new trial, from District Court, Storey county; Richard Rising, District Judge.
The facts are declared to be the same as those in the case of Deegan v. Deegan, et al. (No. 1409), ante, by the Court in the following opinion:
Per Curiam:
This case turns on the same questions presented in the case of Deegan v. Same Defendants (No. 1409; this day decided), and it must be decided in the same way. Judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.