City of Los Angeles v. City Bank
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Searls, C.
The 44th section of the city charter of the city of Los Angeles provided a mode by which the funds of the citjr should be deposited in such bank of deposit of the city as would pay the highest rate of interest thereon, etc. (Statutes, 1889, p. 467.)
Pursuant to such section of the charter a contract was, after due notice, on the tenth day of March, 1890, entered into by and between the plaintiff and defendant by which the former appointed the latter the depository of the public money of said city, for the term of one year from the date of the agreement; the city agreed that the city…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Fake v. Addy'sCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1835
- Southern Central Railroad v. Town of MoraviaNew York Supreme Court · 1871
- Yarnell v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- American Bible Society v. WellsSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1878
3Cited by19 opinions
- Smith v. BachCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
- Brady v. OliverTennessee Supreme Court · 1911
- Domenigoni v. Imperial Live Stock & Mortgage Co.California Supreme Court · 1922
- Estate of YoellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
- Hayt v. BentelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.