Legal Opinion
Bank of Hawaii v. Gibson
California Court of Appeal
Decided July 13, 1936No. Civ. 5414PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SHIELDS, J., pro tem.
This petition arose out of a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by the petitioners herein, who are the owners of certain bonds issued by Reclamation District No. 108.
The petition recites that certain interest coupons of such bonds have matured; that they were presented to the respondent Gibson, who is the duly elected and acting treasurer of the county of Colusa, and as such, is the custodian of the funds of the said reclamation district; that their payment was demanded, and that such payment was refused. The petition further states that there are funds of the district…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Gray v. Reclamation District No. 1500California Supreme Court · 1917
- People Ex Rel. Chapman v. Sacramento Drainage Dist.California Supreme Court · 1909
- La Mesa Lemon Grove & Spring Valley Irrigation District v. HornbeckCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
- Kittredge v. BoydSupreme Court of Kansas · 1933
- State Ex Rel. Sturdivant Bank v. Little River Drainage DistrictSupreme Court of Missouri · 1934
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Smith v. AddiegoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
- Campbell v. WoolnerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
- Bekins v. HeikenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
- Morris v. GibsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
- Reclamation District No. 108 v. GibsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944