Leeman v. Perris Irrigation District
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
CHIPMAN, C.
This is an action to recover the amount of certain so-called “installment coupons,” attached to certain bonds of defendant, a corporation organized under the commonly called Wright Act (Stats. 1887, p. 29). The trial court gave judgment for defendant upon the ground that the bonds to which these coupons were attached were disposed of “in a manner and for a purpose unauthorized by law, and that said bonds are, and each of them is, absolutely void.” Plaintiff appeals from the judgment and from the order denying his motion for a new trial. The bonds in question are numbered 192, 623,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Hughson v. CraneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Stimson v. Alessandro Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
- Baxter v. Vineland Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
3Cited by10 opinions
- Day v. Buckeye Water Conservation & Drainage DistrictArizona Supreme Court · 1925
- Rialto Irr. Dist. v. StowellCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1917
- Fogg v. Perris Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
- Ham v. Grapeland Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
- Stowell v. Rialto Irrigation Dist.California Supreme Court · 1909
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.