Kendall v. Porter
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County. Matt. F. Johnson, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1DissentBeatty, C. J.
I dissent. This is a proceeding by mandamus to enforce payment of interest on certain bonds of the city of Sacramento. The bonds fell due on the first day of February, 1888, and on the twelfth day of February, 1895, the holder presented them to the city treasurer with a demand that he should pay the principal and interest thereon from maturity. The treasurer refused to pay any interest, and refused to pay the principal except upon condition that the bonds should be surrendered. He took the position, in other words, that the bonds ceased to bear interest at maturity, or, if they did not cease…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Freehill v. ChamberlainCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
- Bates v. PorterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
- Sawyer v. ColganCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Hopkins v. Contra Costa CountyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Davis v. PorterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.