Bank of Lemoore v. Fulgham
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.
When this case was in Department it was decided without reference to the Curative Act found at page 63 of the statutes of 1903. This was so because the briefs made no mention of, and placed no reliance upon, the provisions of that act. In Baird v. Monroe, 150 Cal. 560, [89 Pac. 352], this act and its effect are considered. It is held to be constitutional and to relieve tax certificates and deeds from the irregularities and informalities enumerated.
Consideration of the ease at bar must, therefore, be had in the light of this Curative Act.
Plaintiff’s appeal is from a judgment in favor of…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Baird v. MonroeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
- Doe Ex Dem. Governeur's Heirs v. RobertsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1826
- Sparks v. HessCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
- Baker v. KelleySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1866
- De Treville v. SmallsSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by48 opinions
- Stein v. United R.R. of S.F.California Supreme Court · 1911
- Ley v. DominguezCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
- Malone v. ClemowCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
- State v. Royal Consolidated Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1921
- Hill v. BadeljyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.