Legal Opinion

In re Difference & Controversy between E. M. Derby & Co. & City of Modesto

California Supreme Court

Decided November 23, 1894No. 18379PublishedCited by 37 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Haynes, C.

E. M. Derby & Co., a corporation and taxpayer of the city of Modesto, claiming that certain bonds issued by said city to the aggregate amount of eighty-five thousand dollars, tobe used for the construction of a system of water works and sewers, are illegal and void, and because thereof that no tax can be lawfully levied or collected to pay the same, agreed with the city of Modesto, the board of trustees of said city, the members of said hoard, the treasurer of said city and the Oakland Bank of Savings, a corporation, which was the original purchaser and holder of said bonds, to…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. St. Joseph Township v. RogersSupreme Court of the United States · 1873
  2. Bemis v. LeonardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1875
  3. Savings and Loan Society v. ThompsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
  4. Hagenmeyer v. Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  5. Misch v. MayhewCalifornia Supreme Court · 1876

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

3Cited by37 opinions

  1. Clark v. City of Los AngeLesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
  2. Law v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  3. Keigley v. Bench, City RecorderUtah Supreme Court · 1939
  4. In Re East Bay Etc. Water Bonds of 1925California Supreme Court · 1925
  5. Wilcox v. EngebretsenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911

32 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