Boskowitz v. Thompson
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion. George H. Maxwell, R. M. F. Soto, Purcell Rowe, C. L. Russell, and G. W. Zartman, for Appellants. The cross-complaint was invalid, both because the interveners came in as defendants and could not file a cross-bill which the original defendants could not file (East Side Irr. Dist. v. Holcomb, 126 Cal. 315, 320; Curran v. St. Charles Car Co., 32 Fed. 835), and also for failure to make the necessary parties defendants.
Read the full summary
The facts are stated in the opinion. George H. Maxwell, R. M. F. Soto, Purcell Rowe, C. L. Russell, and G. W. Zartman, for Appellants. The cross-complaint was invalid, both because the interveners came in as defendants and could not file a cross-bill which the original defendants could not file (East Side Irr. Dist. v. Holcomb, 126 Cal. 315, 320; Curran v. St. Charles Car Co., 32 Fed. 835), and also for failure to make the necessary parties defendants. Neither the defendant collector nor the irrigation district was made a party thereto. (Cassatt v. Board of Commrs., 39 Kan. 505; Glenn v.…
1Opinion of the Court
HARRISON, C.
The Tipton Irrigation District in Tulare County was organized as a public corporation under the provisions of the Wright Act (Stats. 1887, p. 29) in July, 1891, and in the year 1896 its board of directors levied an assessment of two dollars and forty-seven cents upon each one hundred dollars assessed value of the real property in the district, for the purpose of raising thirty-six hundred dollars with which to pay the annual interest on fifty thousand dollars of bonds theretofore issued by it and outstanding, and the further sum of $1,242.55 for a fund created by the district…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Thompson v. Allen CountySupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Corbin v. YoungSupreme Court of Kansas · 1880
- People Ex Rel. Fogg v. Perris Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- Hughson v. CraneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- People v. BigginsIllinois Supreme Court · 1880
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Redevelopment Agency v. HayesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
- Drinkhouse v. Van NessCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
- Regents of University of California v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
- Alpers v. BlissCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Timberidge Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Santa RosaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1978
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.