Legal Opinion

City of Goldfield v. MacDonald

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided September 15, 1911No. 6274PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Brror to Denver District Court.—Hon. SamuEr E. Carpenter, Judge.

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Bairey

The action is for the cancellation of certain outstanding municipal obligations of the city of Goldfield, referred to as “water right obligations,” the precise form of which is set out at length in the complaint. The allegations of the complaint disclose, in substance, this state of facts:

That prior to the 12th day of November, 1900, the defendants, Minnie, Christina, Tenna and Kittie MacDonald, now Kittie Eliason, were the owners of an undivided half of ten acres of land described in the complaint; *145that these defendants, .with one John MacDonaM, • who was- then acting as attorney in fact for…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Oscanyan v. Arms Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1881
  2. Wardell v. Railroad Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1881
  3. Lee v. JohnsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
  4. Meguire v. CorwineSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
  5. Wight v. RindshopfWisconsin Supreme Court · 1877

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Davis v. City and County of DenverSupreme Court of Colorado · 1959
  2. Oates v. Morningside CollegeSupreme Court of Iowa · 1934
  3. School District No. 1 v. FakerSupreme Court of Colorado · 1940
  4. Walker Ex Rel. Walker v. BurkhamNevada Supreme Court · 1945

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

Powered by the Exa API