Legal Opinion
Bates v. McHenry
California Court of Appeal
Decided April 26, 1932No. Docket No. 4628PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPlummer, J.
The petitioner in this action is the owner of 94 bonds of the Merced Irrigation District, a district duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the state of California, of the par value of $94,000, upon which there became due and payable on the first day of January, 1932, the sum of $2,820 as interest thereon, evidenced by coupons attached to said bonds. The intervener, Banks, Huntley & Company, was, on the first day of January, 1932, the holder of interest coupons on bonds issued by said district in the sum of $80,720.50, which coupons were due and payable on the first…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Stockton Plumbing & Supply Co. v. WheelerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924
- Norris v. Montezuma Valley Irr. Dist.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1918
- Meyer v. PorterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
- Thomas v. PattersonSupreme Court of Colorado · 1916
- County of Los Angeles v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Stockton Savings & Loan Bank v. MassanetCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
- West Coast Life Ins. Co. v. Merced Irr. Dist.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1940
- State Ex Rel. Sturdivant Bank v. Little River Drainage DistrictSupreme Court of Missouri · 1934
- El Camino Irrigation District v. El Camino Land Corp.California Supreme Court · 1938
- Rohwer v. GibsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.