Legal Opinion

Gustafson v. Hammond Irrigation District

Montana Supreme Court

Decided March 27, 1930No. 6,633PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Angstman

Plaintiff, as a taxpayer on lands situated within defendant irrigation district, brought this action to enjoin the sale of refunding bonds. A general demurrer to the complaint was sustained. Plaintiff, declining to amend the complaint, suffered judgment to be entered dismissing the action. He appealed from the judgment.

From the complaint it appears that the commissioners of the irrigation district, on May 15, 1929, determined that it was advisable and necessary to issue refunding bonds in tbe sum of $17,000, for tbe purpose of redeeming outstanding warrants of the district. Proceedings were…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. People Ex Rel. Kell v. KramerIllinois Supreme Court · 1928
  2. Flanders v. Town of MerrimackWisconsin Supreme Court · 1880
  3. Hutto v. Walker CountySupreme Court of Alabama · 1913
  4. Crohn v. Kansas City Home Telephone Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1908
  5. State Ex Rel. Hahn v. District CourtMontana Supreme Court · 1928

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Hassett v. WelchSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  2. Weber v. City of HelenaMontana Supreme Court · 1931
  3. Thomas v. Board of Chattooga CountySupreme Court of Georgia · 1943
  4. Standard Oil Co. v. Idaho Community Oil Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1933
  5. State v. SheldonCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1952

4 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