Legal Opinion

Stimson v. Alessandro Irrigation District

California Supreme Court

Decided January 23, 1902No. L.A. No. 925PublishedCited by 21 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtMcFARLAND, J.

This action is for the amount of interest coupons which were attached to certain alleged bonds of the defendant, an irrigation district organized under an act of the legislature, approved March 7, 1887, and generally known as the “Wright Act.” (Stats. 1887, p. 29.) The court below gave judgment for defendant upon the ground that the issuance, disposition, and delivery of said bonds were without any legal authority, and that, therefore, the bonds are void. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment.

The material facts in the case, found by the court on sufficient evidence, or admitted, are these:…

2Cited by21 opinions

  1. Day v. Buckeye Water Conservation & Drainage DistrictArizona Supreme Court · 1925
  2. Rialto Irr. Dist. v. StowellCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1917
  3. Bottoms v. Madera Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
  4. Fogg v. Perris Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
  5. Turlock Irrigation District v. HetrickCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1999

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API