Wichmann v. City of Placerville
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. J. M. Seawell, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.
This action was at law to recover upon seven bonds issued by the defendant municipality under an act of the legislature entitled, “An act authorizing the common council of the city of Placerville to issue certain bonds for the relief of the fire department of said city,” approved April 3, 1863. (Stats. 1863, p. 166.) The defendant demurred to plaintiff’s amended complaint upon several grounds. The demurrer was sustained, judgment passed for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
The general demurrer for lack of facts is decisive of this controversy, and is therefore the only proposition which need…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Louisiana v. PilsburySupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Mobile v. WatsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Broughton v. PensacolaSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Shapleigh v. San AngeloSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Sutro v. PettitCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- San Christina Investment Co. v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
- Foxen v. City of Santa BarbaraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
- Montecito County Water District v. DoultonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
- Boise City National Bank v. Boise CityIdaho Supreme Court · 1909
- City of Salinas v. Telephone & Telegraph Co.California Court of Appeal · 1946
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.