Legal Opinion

Wood v. City of Mobile

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Decided April 2, 1901No. 939PublishedCited by 5 opinions

In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Alabama.

1Opinion of the Court

PARDEE, Circuit Judge.

The legislature of the state of Alabama, by an act approved November 30, 1898, authorized the city of Mobile to provide, maintain, and operate systems of waterworks and sewerage; and by an act approved November 30, 1898, authorized the city of Mobile to make and issue bonds for building, purchasing, or otherwise acquiring systems of waterworks, and to secure said bonds; and by an act approved December 10, 1898, authorized the city of Mobile to condemn by eminent domain the outstanding interest in what is known as the “Mobile City Waterworks.” The last-mentioned act reads…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Kinnier v. . KinnierNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
  2. New Lamp Chimney Co. v. Ansonia Brass & Copper Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1876
  3. Herron v. DaterSupreme Court of the United States · 1887

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Board of Educ. of USD 512 v. Vic Regnier BuildersSupreme Court of Kansas · 1982
  2. Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. CrowellDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1917
  3. Butz v. Bancohio National Bank (In Re Toriello)United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · 1981
  4. Board of Educ. of USD 512 v. Vic Regnier BuildersSupreme Court of Kansas · 1982
  5. Wood v. City of MobileCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1901

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

Powered by the Exa API