Legal Opinion

Irvine v. Reclamation District No. 108

California Supreme Court

Decided July 10, 1944No. Sac. 5616; Sac. 5610PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCarter, J.

These consolidated actions present the question of the liability of reclamation- districts for interest on their bonds and interest coupons after maturity. The Irvine ease was before this court on a prior occasion but the issue was not passed upon. (Irvine v. Gibson, 19 Cal.2d 14 [118 P.2d 812].)

In the Irvine case it is charged in the complaint that the defendant Reclamation District No. 108, was organized under the general reclamation law of 1868; and issued on January 1, 1925, bonds of the denomination of $1,000 each in the total principal sum of $3,142,000, bearing interest at 6 per cent…

2Cases cited41 opinions

  1. Los Angeles Dredging Co. v. City of Long BeachCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930
  2. Gray v. BekinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
  3. Meyer v. City and County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
  4. Spencer v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
  5. Savings & Loan Society v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Rand v. BossenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
  2. Irvine v. BossenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  3. Gregory v. StateCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
  4. State Ex Rel. Mueller v. ToddMontana Supreme Court · 1945
  5. McGuire & Hester v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952

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

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

Powered by the Exa API