People Ex Rel. Beede v. Town of Antioch
California Court of Appeal
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. B. D. Marx Greene, and Hillyer, Stringham & O ’Brien, for Appellant. U. S. Webb, Attorney General, W. S. Tinning, Titus, Creed & Dall, J. P. Abbott, and A. M. Kidd, for Respondent.
1Opinion of the CourtHall, J.
This is a proceeding in quo warranto brought by the attorney general, upon complaint of H. P. Beede, to obtain a judgment determining that the defendant is unlawfully asserting and exercising jurisdiction as a municipal corporation over territory lying wholly outside the corporate boundaries of said town of Antioch. The primary purpose of the proceeding is to procure a determination as to what constitute the boundaries of said town, and the solution of this question involves the construction and interpretation of the statute entitled “An act to properly define the boundaries of the town of…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- California Loan & Trust Co. v. WeisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Palms v. Shawano CountyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1884
- People ex rel. Gridley v. FarnhamIllinois Supreme Court · 1864
- Clark's Run & Salt River Turnpike Road Co. v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1895
- Belknap v. City of LouisvilleCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1892
3Cited by3 opinions
- San Francisco-Oakland Terminal Railways v. County of AlamedaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924
- City of Alameda v. City of OaklandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1926
- Connecticut Bank & Trust Co. v. CoffinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1989