Chesebrough v. City and County of San Francisco
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Percy V. Long, City Attorney, W. I. Brobeck, Assistant City Attorney, Jesse H. Steinhart, Assistant City Attorney, Wm. G. Burke, City Attorney, and A. S. Newburgh, Assistant City Attorney, for Appellant.
1Opinion of the Court
LORIGAN,
J.—This action was brought by the plaintiffs ■as executors of the estate of Charles Hanson, deceased, to recover from the defendant the sum of $5,765.26 paid under protest for taxes on certain shares of stock assessed to said estate. The action arose out of a state of facts set forth in the findings of the court and which in substance are as follows: The Tacoma Mill Company is a corporation duly organized .and existing under the laws of this state having its principal place of business in the city and county of San Francisco, with a capital stock of five hundred thousand dollars,…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Kelley v. RhoadsSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
- Kelley v. RhoadsWyoming Supreme Court · 1898
- Crocker v. ScottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
- People ex rel. Burke v. BadlamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
- In re MitchellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- De Luz Homes, Inc. v. County of San DiegoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
- Potter v. ChambersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
- People v. Globe Grain & Milling Co.California Supreme Court · 1930
- Matter of Application of SchulerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
- County of Los Angeles v. MorrisonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.