Seale v. Balsdon
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Colusa County in denying a petition for a writ of mandate. Ernest Weyand, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
PLUMMER, P. J., pro tem.
The petitioner is now, and since the twenty-eighth day of December, 1916, has been, the owner of 439.74 acres of land situate within the exterior boundaries of Reclamation District No. 108.
In the month of August, 1913, an assessment known as and mentioned in the pleadings in this case as assessment number one was levied upon a larger tract of land, including the lands above referred to as belonging to the petitioner, then owned by the plaintiff and other persons as tenants in common.
In the month of August, 1914, another assessment, known as and called assessment number…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Bankers Life Insurance v. RobbinsNebraska Supreme Court · 1899
- Dewart v. PurdySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1858
- Smith v. Mayor of DublinSupreme Court of Georgia · 1901
- People ex rel. Eckerson v. Board of EducationAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1908
- Cary v. Kearney National BankNebraska Supreme Court · 1899
3Cited by10 opinions
- McKinney v. McKinneyWyoming Supreme Court · 1943
- Everett v. IngrahamSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1962
- Kenney v. KenneyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
- Snider v. BasingerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976
- Riley v. TurpinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.