Legal Opinion

McBean v. City of Fresno

California Supreme Court

Decided March 25, 1896No. Sac. No. 86PublishedCited by 107 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County and from an order denying a new trial. J. R Webb, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.

The city of Fresno duly and regularly, so far as form and procedure are concerned, entered into a contract with plaintiff by which plaintiff agreed to take care and dispose of the sewage of the city for the period of five years for the sum of four thousand nine hundred dollars per annum, payable quarterly. Plaintiff was required to give, and did give, a bond in the sum of ten thousand dollars, to which extent he agreed to reimburse the corporation for any liability or loss it *162might incur or suffer by reason of a faulty performance of his contract. No natural means were available to Fresno for…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Grant v. City of DavenportSupreme Court of Iowa · 1873
  2. City of Valparaiso v. GardnerIndiana Supreme Court · 1884
  3. City of East St. Louis v. East St. Louis Gas Light & Coke Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1881
  4. Koppikus v. State Capitol Comm'rsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
  5. State v. McCauleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860

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

3Cited by107 opinions

  1. Westbrook v. MihalyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
  2. City Council v. Dawson Waterworks Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1899
  3. American Co. v. City of LakeportCalifornia Supreme Court · 1934
  4. Stein v. MorrisonIdaho Supreme Court · 1904
  5. Southern California Gas Co. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1958

102 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