Ham v. Grapeland Irrigation District
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
VICTOR E. SHAW, J., pro tem.
Appellant, an irrigation district, issued certain bonds, to recover judgment upon part of which issue this action was brought.
In its answer defendant admitted the issuance of the bonds, but averred that they were unlawfully issued in that they were erroneously dated; that there was no value or lawful consideration paid therefor; that recovery thereon was barred by the statute of limitations; and that instead of being sold for cash they were, contrary to the provisions of the act authorizing their issue, exchanged for labor, commodities, and supplies.
The bonds and…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Cromwell v. County of SacSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Town of Coloma v. EavesSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Gunnison County Commissioners v. RollinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1899
- Union Collection Co. v. BuckmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
- San Antonio v. MehaffySupreme Court of the United States · 1878
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Meyerfeld v. South San Joaquin Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
- Farwell v. San Jacinto & Pleasant Valley Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
- Meyerfeld v. South San Joaquin Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
- Stowell v. Rialto Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
- Tsasu LLC v. U.S. Bank Trust, N.A.California Court of Appeal · 2021