Legal Opinion

San Joaquin & Kings River Canal & Irrigation Co. v. Merced County

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 2, 1906No. Civ. No. 112PublishedCited by 2 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtMcLAUGHLIN, J.

This is an action to recover taxes paid under protest. The complaint ■ contains a concise statement of the following facts: 1. That on September 1, 1871, the plaintiff was incorporated under an act entitled “An act to authorize the incorporation of canal companies,” approved May 14, 1862. 2. That ever since said date it has been and now is a corporation organized and doing business under the laws of this state, and has had its principal place of business in the city and county of San Francisco. 3. That it was incorporated “for the purposes of the construction of canals for the transportation…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. California v. Central Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
  2. City of San Francisco v. Spring Valley Water WorksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1874
  3. Spring Valley Water Works v. SchottlerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882
  4. San Jose Gas Co. v. JanuaryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
  5. New Orleans, Spanish Fort & Lake Railroad v. DelamoreSupreme Court of the United States · 1885

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Wheeler v. HurleyNevada Supreme Court · 1925
  2. General Exchange Ins. Corp. v. DudleyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1939

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API