Legal Opinion

County of Santa Cruz v. McPherson

California Supreme Court

Decided June 26, 1901No. S.F. No. 2225PublishedCited by 13 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

GRAY, C.

This action was brought under the provisions of section 8 of the County Government Act of 1893 (Stats. 1893, p. 347), to recover $1,035, alleged to have been illegally paid to defendants for county printing. The plaintiff appeals from a judgment following an order sustaining a demurrer to its amended complaint.

The complaint as amended, so far as necessary to be here stated, alleges, in substance, that the defendants entered into a conspiracy with other printers and publishers of said county of Santa Cruz to defraud the said county; that it was agreed between the conspirators that the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Mcconoughey v. JacksonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
  2. McFarland v. McCowenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  3. McBride v. NewlinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
  4. Colusa County v. De JarnettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
  5. Lamberson v. JefferdsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. County of Yolo v. JoyceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
  2. County of Alameda v. EversCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
  3. County of Tehama v. SissonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
  4. Salt Lake County v. ClintonUtah Supreme Court · 1911
  5. County of San Diego v. MilotzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953

8 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