Stowell v. Rialto Irrigation Dist.
California Supreme Court
APPEALS from judgments of the Superior Court of Sam Bernardino County and from orders denying a new trial-Benjamin F. Bledsoe, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtSloss, J.
In each of the above entitled actions, the plaintiff! seeks to recover from the Rialto Irrigation District the-amount of certain interest coupons attached to bonds issued by the district. The cases were consolidated for trial, and judgment was entered in favor of the defendant in each case. Appeals are prosecuted by the plaintiff from these judgments and from orders denying his motions for a new trial. Except as to the numbers of the coupons involved, both cases present the same facts, and our discussion of the questions of law arising on these facts is applicable to both appeals.
The…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Yesler v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1890
- United States Ex Rel. Ness v. FisherSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
- City of South St. Paul v. Lamprecht Bros.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1898
- Township of Rock Creek v. StrongSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Flagg v. Mayor of PalmyraSupreme Court of Missouri · 1863
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Rialto Irr. Dist. v. StowellCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1917
- Wyman v. SearleNebraska Supreme Court · 1910
- American Surety Co. of New York v. Cove Irr. Dist.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1928
- Mitchell v. PowerArizona Supreme Court · 1927
- Stowell v. Rialto Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927