People v. Chambers
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Second Judicial ■ District, Plumas County. 0 The facts, so far as they are material to the decision, are stated in the opinion; but it may he added that the action was instituted professedly for the purpose of relieving the County of Plumas from the operation of the Act of March 30th, 1868, known as the Bond Act (Stats. 1867-8, p. 630). The decision in the Court below having been adverse, the plaintiff appealed.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Crockett, J.:
This is an action of quo warranto against the defendants, claiming to compose the “ Oroville and Virginia City Bail-road Company,” in which the defendants are charged with usurping the functions of a railroad company, without having been duly and properly incorporated as such. The answer sets up the several acts which were performed by the corporators to effect an organization under the general corporation Act of this State, and avers that the statute was complied with, and the company duly organized. Judgment was entered for the defendants, and the plaintiff…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Eaton v. . AspinwallNew York Court of Appeals · 1859
- Haviland v. ChaceNew York Supreme Court · 1860
- Taggart v. Western Maryland Rail RoadCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1866
- People v. Troy House Co.New York Supreme Court · 1865
- People ex rel. Barton v. Rensselaer InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1862
3Cited by4 opinions
- People v. SelfridgeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1877
- People v. Stockton & Visalia RailroadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1873
- Albright v. Texas Santa Fe & Northern RailroadNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1895
- Fuller v. Cleveland City Railway Co.Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court · 1901